M 


%■& 


>ofr I  ■   "'^>>» 


J"  FEB  8    1894  * 


'i  M«*  MEM 


.-    ..* 


FOUNDERS 


OF 


OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM 


Founders  of 
Old  Testament  Criticism 


BIOGRAPHICAL,  DESCRIPTIVE,  AND  CRITICAL 

STUDIES 


BY 

T.  K.  CHEYNE,  M.A.,  D.D. 

OK1LL   PROFESSOR   OP   THE    INTBRPRBTATION   UK   HOLY  SCRIPTURE, 
FORMERLY    FELLOW   OP    BALLIOL  COLLLUK,    OXPORO ', 
CANON    OK    ROCHESTER 


Ncto  gorfe 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

1893 


PREFACE 


TlIE  present  volume  contains  a  series  of  pictures 
of  eminent  Old  Testament  critics  from  the  beginning 
of  the  critical  movement  to  the  present  day,  with  an 
attempt  in  each  case  to  estimate  the  services  of  the 
subject  of  the  picture.  It  is  hoped  that  it  may  be 
not  only  interesting  but  instructive,  and  may  tend  to 
remove  some  current  mistakes  and  misconceptions. 
Let  me  mention  a  few  of  these.  Criticism,  it  is  said 
by  some,  is  a  recent  invention  ;  it  is  arrogant  to 
pretend  that  it  has  reached  any  final  or  even  approxi- 
mate results.  Criticism,  say  others,  is  of  purely 
German  origin  ;  it  is  foolish  to  import  what  has  no 
roots  in  our  own  mental  history.  Criticism,  says  yet 
another  school  of  writers,  is  purely  rationalistic  ;  it 
has  no  interest  in,  and  can  be  of  no  considerable 
service  to,  positive  theological  truth.  Criticism,  say 
a  few  other  respected  but  isolated  observers,  is  narrow 
in  its  methods  ;  it  goes  on  grinding  for  ever  at  the 
same  mill,  and  needs  an  almost  complete  recon- 
struction. In  particular,  according  to  these  censors, 
it  dreads  archaeology,  and  it  is  time  for  sober  English- 


VI  PREFACE. 

men  to  strike  out  a  new  method,  which  will  have  the 
additional  advantage  of  being  theologically  safe. 

All  these  statements  are,  I  believe,  based  on  un- 
fortunate misconceptions,  which  are  best  removed  by 
throwing  as  much  light  as  possible  on  the  history  of 
criticism.  To  do  this  adequately  would  of  course  be 
a  work  of  immense  labour,  nor  have  I  leisure  to 
attempt  it.  But  I  venture  to  hope  that  the  present 
series  of  studies  may  be  a  small  contribution  towards 
the  future  history,  and  that  the  personal  elements  in 
the  studies  may  give  them  a  certain  value  even  after 
the  history  has  been  accomplished.  For  it  is  not  un- 
important to  notice  how  the  intellectual  phases  and 
material  surroundings  of  a  writer  have  affected  his 
criticism.  We  may  see  thus  how  natural  and  in- 
evitable his  course  was,  and  how  pardonable  were 
his  errors  ;  we  may  also  gather  from  his  life  both 
warnings  and  encouragements.  I  have  taken  special 
pains  to  make  this  clear  in  the  cases  of  Ewald,  who 
for  a  time  almost  seemed  to  have  been  annexed  by 
liberal  English  theology,  and  of  De  Wette.  And  the 
whole  series  is  concluded  by  a  survey  of  the  present 
state  of  Old  Testament  criticism,  without  which 
indeed  the  volume  would  have  lacked  much  of  any 
practical  helpfulness  which  it  may  possess. 

Let  me  explain.  The  last  three  chapters,  though 
more  predominantly  critical  than  the  preceding  ones, 
are  by  no  means  an  excrescence.  The  survey  of 
criticism  which  they  contain  is  not  mechanically 
attached  to  the  sketches  of  critics,  but  grows  natur- 


PREFACE.  vii 

ally  out  of  a  personal  study  of  one  of  the  most 
blameless  and  devoted  of  living  scholars.  It  is  an 
attempt  to  supply  a  want  which  is  constantly  being 
brought  before  me.  Introductory  works  are  happily 
multiplying  among  us,  but  on  the  whole  they  scarcely 
give  an  adequate  idea  of  the  actual  position  of  Old 
Testament  problems  (especially  outside  the  Hexa- 
teuch),  and  yet,  if  we  all  cautiously  limit  ourselves 
by  the  requirements  of  beginners,  our  students  will 
be  in  danger  of  contracting  a  somewhat  insular  and 
provincial  spirit. 

The  series  of  studies,  which  I  have  thus  endeavoured 
to  round  off,  is  far  from  being  as  complete  as  I  could 
have  wished.  Historically  indeed  it  is  continuous, 
but  from  an  international  point  of  view  some  plausible 
complaints  may  be  urged  against  it.  There  is  but 
one  Dutch  critic  who  is  sketched,  viz.  Kuenen  ;  but 
one  French-writing  critic,  viz.  Reuss  ;  nor  are  any  of 
the  actually  living  and  working  German  critics  (except 
Schrader,  who  has  now  quitted  the  field  of  the  u  higher 
criticism")  either  described  or  criticized.  The  reasons 
for  these  omissions  are  however  not  far  to  seek. 
Some  limitation  of  the  range  of  the  volume  was 
necessary.  Prof.  S.  I.  Curtiss  had  already  treated  of 
the  earlier  precursors  of  criticism  (including  Simon 
and  Astruc),  and  an  able  young  French  scholar,  M. 
Alexandre  Westphal,  had  given  an  equally  accurate 
and  interesting  sketch  of  Hexateuch  criticism.1    With 

1  Lts sources du Peniaieuque.  Tom.  I.  Le  probleme  litteraire. 
Paris,  1888, 


viii  PREFACE. 

regard  to  German  and  Dutch  critics,  I  must  confess 
to  a  feeling  of  profound  sadness  at  the  losses  of  the 
last  few  years  ;  the  unexpected  deaths  of  Riehm, 
Kuenen,  and  Lagarde  seemed  to  check  my  pen  in 
its  progress.  It  is  true,  a  similar  excuse  cannot  be 
offered  to  French  critical  workers.  But  I  hope  that 
scholars  like  Bruston,  Piepenring,  and  Westphal  (who 
work  under  conditions  in  some  respects  analogous 
to  our  own)  will  accept  the  assurance  of  my  warm 
interest  in  their  researches,  and  my  expectation  of 
happy  results  from  them  for  international  Biblical 
criticism.1 

Friendliest  greetings  also  to  all  British,  American, 
and  Australian  fellow-workers !  Whether  we  will  it 
or  no,  we  must  all  be  in  some  sense  English,  and  it  is 
one  of  our  most  characteristic  features  that  we  look 
to  the  practical  results  of  scientific  research.  We 
cannot  be  mere  historical  or  literary  critics  ;  we  feel 
that  we  must  contribute,  each  in  his  degree,  to  the 
construction  of  an  improved  Christian  apologetic  for 
our  own  age.  Happily,  this  is  not  now  an  exclusively 
English  characteristic  ;  the  same  consciousness  of 
Christian  duty  is  visible  in  representative  German 
critics,  such  as  Hermann  Schultz,  author  of  Old 
Testajnent  Theology.  Let  us  see  to  it  that,  while  our 
German  kinsfolk  are  learning  to  be  more  practical  in 
their  theology,  we  on  our  side  become  not  less  apt 

1  For  a  list  of  continental  as  well  as  British  and  American 
critical  writers,  see  part  6  of  Appendix  to  Briggs's  The  Bible,  the 
Church,  and  the  Reason  (T.  &  T.  Clark,  1892). 


PREFACE.  ix 

pupils  in  the  spirit  and  in  the  methods  of  critical 
inquiry.  For  sound  Biblical  criticism  is  neither  German 
nor  English,  neither  Lutheran,  nor  Anglican,  nor 
Presbyterian,  but  international  and  interconfessional. 
It  has  a  great  history  behind  it,  and  a  still  greater  one 
may,  let  us  hope,  be  before  it. 

Oxford^ 

Nov.  30,  1 89 2. 

....%.  During  my  absence  in  Egypt  the  correction  of 
the  proofs  has  been  kindly  undertaken  by  Mr.  G. 
Buchanan  Gray,  B.A.,  Lecturer  in  Hebrew  and  the  Old 
Testament  in  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 


CONTENTS 


CHAT. 
1. 


II. 
III. 

IV. 

v. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 


PAGE 


X. 


XI. 

XII. 

XIII. 


THE     PRECURSORS     IN    ENGLAND  :    WAR  BURTON, 
LOWTH,   GEDDES 

THE    OPENING     01"      METHODICAL    CRITICISM     IN 
GERMANY.       EICHHORN    AND    ILGEN 

DE  WETTE,    GESENIUS     ... 

EWALD    (i):     THE    DEVELOPMENT    PERIOD 

EWALD  (2)  I    HIS  WEAKNESS  AND    HIS   STRENGTH 
AS    A    CRITIC    AND    AS    A    MAX 

HITZIG,    [HENGSTENBERG,]    YATKE,    BLEEK 

HUPFELD,    DELITZSCH      ...  ... 

RIEHM,    REUSS,    LAGARDE,    KUENEN 

THE     OPENING     OF     METHODICAL     CRITICISM     IN 
ENGLAND.       COLENSO,  KALISCH,  S.  DAVIDSON, 
ROWLAND    WILLIAMS,  PEROWNE,  A.    P.  DAVID 
SON    (1S62),    RUSSELL    MARTINEAU  ... 

THE  MODERN  PERIOD.       ROBERTSON  SMITH,  A.  B 
DAVIDSON,    BRIGGS,  TOY,   [SCHRADER,]  SAYCE, 
KIRK  PATRICK,         KYLE,        FRANCIS         BROWN, 
MOORE,     WHITEHOUSF,     G.     A.     SMITH,     DUFF, 
FKIPP,    ADDIS,    MOXTLI  IORL,    BEVAN 

DRIVER    (i) 

DRIVER    (2) 

DRIVER    (3) 


31 

66 

99 
119 

149 

172 


*95 


j  1  : 
248 

293 

1  1  1 


FOUNDERS 


OF 


OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 


CHAPTER    I. 

THE   PRECURSORS   IN    ENGLAND — WARBURTON, 
LOWTH,   GEDDES. 

A  WELL-KNOWN  and  honoured  representative  of 
progressive  German  orthodoxy  (J.  A.  Dorner)  has 
set  a  fine  example  of  historical  candour  by  admitting 
the  obligations  of  his  country  to  a  much-disliked 
form  of  English  heterodoxy.  He  says  that  English 
Deism,  which  found  so  many  apt  disciples  in  Ger- 
many, "  by  clearing  away  dead  matter,  prepared  the 
way  for  a  reconstruction  of  theology  from  the  very 
depths  of  the  heart's  beliefs,  and  also  subjected  man's 
nature  to  stricter  observation."  l  This,  however,  as  it 
appears  to  me,  is  a  very  inadequate  description  of 
facts.     It  was  not  merely  a  new  constructive  stage  of 

1  History  of  Protestant  Theology  y  E.  T.,  ii.  77.  For  the 
influence  of  Deism  on  Germany,  see  Tholuck  (Vermischte 
Schriftcn,  Bd  ii.)  and  Lcchler  {Gcscli.  des  englischcn  Deismus). 

u 


2       FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

German  theoretic  theology,  and  a  keener  psychological 
investigation,  for  which  Deism  helped  to  prepare  the 
way,  but  also  a  great  movement,  which  has  in  our 
own  day  become  in  a  strict  sense  international,  con- 
cerned with  the  literary  and  historical  criticism  of 
the  Scriptures.  Beyond  all  doubt,  the  Biblical  dis- 
cussions which  abound  in  the  works  of  the  Deists  and 
their  opponents  contributed  in  no  slight  degree  to 
the  development  of  that  semi-apologetic  criticism  of 
the  Old  Testament,  of  which  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  in 
some  degree  even  Eichhorn,  were  leading  represent- 
atives. Transitory  as  the  Deism  of  Toland  and  Collins 
was,  it  achieved  the  distinction,  not  only  of  calling 
forth  Bishop  Butler's  Analogy,  but  of  influencing  or 
stimulating  a  number  of  eminent  German  scholars  of 
various  theological  colours,  among  whom  I  must  not 
omit  to  mention  the  earliest  great  New  Testament 
critic,  J.  G.  Semler  (1725 — 1791).  It  is  indeed 
singular  that  Deism  should  have  passed  away  in 
England  without  having  produced  a  great  critical 
movement  among  ourselves.  If  Deuteronomy  be,  as 
M.  Westphal  rightly  claims  that  it  is,  "Ariadne's 
thread  in  the  labyrinth  of  Pentateuch  criticism,"  it  is 
strange  that  an  English  theological  writer,  who  saw 
(for  the  first  time)  that  this  Book  was  a  product  of 
the  seventh  century,1  should  not  have  been  prompted 

1  Parvish,  Inquiry  into  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Revelations 
(Lond.  1739),  P-  324?  referred  to  by  Kleinert  (Das  Denteronomium, 
&c.j  1872,  p.  2).  De  Wette's  epoch-making  dissertation  on  the 
origin  of  Deuteronomy  was  not  published  till  1805. 


WARBURTON — LOWTII.  3 

by  his  good  genius  to  follow  up  his  advantage.  But 
in  point  of  fact  there  are  but  three  isolated  English 
scholars  who  appear  to  have  shown  any  talent  or 
inclination  for  a  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  is  not  merely  concerned  with  various  readings 
of  the  text — viz.  Bishop  Warburton,  Bishop  Lowth,  and 
Dr.  Alexander  Geddes  ;  and  of  these  the  only  one  who 
can  properly  be  called  a  founder  of  criticism  is  the 
third. 

I  have  first  to  speak  of  William  Warburton  and 
Robert  Lowth.  The  former  was  a  born  pamphleteer 
and  controversialist,  and  had  neither  the  learning  nor 
the  seriousness  requisite  for  the  founder  of  a  critical 
school  ;  he  limited  himself  to  throwing  out  hints  on 
Job  and  on  the  Song  of  Songs  in  his  correspondence 
with  Lowth,  which  his  friend  rejected  with  disdain, 
but  which  so  far  as  Job  is  concerned  he  himself 
manfully  defended  in  his  Divine  Legation  of  Moses. 
The  latter  (Lowth)  was,  for  his  time,  a  considerable 
scholar,  but  in  theology  he  clung  (like  Kennicott)  to 
the  traditional  orthodoxy.  Hence  he  felt  constrained 
to  insist  on  the  allegorical  character  of  the  Song  of 
Songs,  and  to  maintain  the  extreme  antiquity  of  the 
Book  of  Job.  And  yet  even  this  circumspect  bishop 
fully  admits  that  the  prophets  spoke  primarily  to  the 
men  of  their  own  time  (sec  e.g.  his  exposition  of  Isa. 
vii.  14),1  and  this  admission  contains  the  promise  of 

1  Cheyne,  Propliccics  of  Isaiah,  ii.  277.  In  England  the  in- 
fluence of  Lowth  was  chiefly  felt  in  textual  criticism  (sec 
Blayney's  fcrcmiah  (i7S4),and  Ncwcomc's  Ezckicl  (1788).    The 


4        FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

the  cautiously  bold  criticism  of  Eichhorn  and  Ewald. 
Both  the  Isaiah  (1778)  and  the  Lectures  De  sacra poesi 
Hebrceorum  (1753)  were  translated  into  German,  and, 
enriched  with  Koppe's  notes  on  the  one  and  with 
those  of  Michaelis  on  the  other,  were  among  the  revo- 
lutionary influences  of  that  unsettled  age  in  Germany. 
The  third  member  of  our  trio  is,  from  any  point  of 
view,  an  interesting  phenomenon.  Alexander  Geddes 
was  born  of  Roman  Catholic  parents  in  Banffshire  in 
1737,  and  studied  at  the  Scottish  College  at  Paris, 
his  chief  teacher  of  Hebrew  being  Ladvocat,  Pro- 
fessor at  the  Sorbonne.  For  some  years  Geddes  led 
a  simple  and  studious  life  as  priest  of  a  Roman 
Catholic  congregation  near  Aberdeen,  and  from 
Aberdeen  University  he  received  the  honorary  dis- 
tinction of  a  LL.D.  degree.  Difficulties  having 
arisen  from  his  liberal  opinions,  he  came  to  London, 
where  he  became  a  notable  figure  in  society,  owing 
to  his  union  of  deep  learning  with  wit  and  liberal 
opinions.  Crabbe  Robinson  of  course  met  him  ;  he 
speaks  of  Geddes's  striking  appearance,  which  re- 
minded him  of  Herder.1  But  again  his  liberal  views, 
expressed  with  uncompromising  frankness,  brought 
Geddes  into  suspicion  of  heterodoxy,  and  without  the 
help  of  his  munificent  patron,  Lord  Petre,  he  would 
scarcely  have  maintained  his  position.     He  himself, 

study  of  the  literary  aspects  of  the  Old  Testament'  made  no 
progress ;  Lowth  was  a  vox  damantis  in  deserto,  so  far  as  England 
was  concerned. 
1  Diary,  i.  113. 


GEDDES.  5 

however,  never  swerved  from  his  allegiance  to  his 
ancestral  faith,  and  promoted  the  cause  of  moderate 
and  reasonable  orthodoxy  by  a  courteous  letter  to 
Dr.  Priestley,  in  which  he  argued  that  the  divinity  of 
Jesus  Christ  was  in  some  sense  held  by  the  antc- 
Niccnc  fathers.  His  great  life-work,  moreover,  was 
one  from  which  all  Christian  Churches  might  have 
profited — viz.  the  preparation  of  a  new  translation  of 
the  Bible  with  explanatory  notes,  and  so  much 
critical  help  as  appeared  necessary  for  educated  and 
thoughtful  readers.  In  1786  he  published  a  Prospectus 
of  this  work  ;  in  1787  a  letter  to  the  Bishop  of 
London  (Lowth)  on  the  same  subject,  and  in  1788 
(in  folio)  proposals  for  printing  this  new  version  by 
subscription.  He  had  much  support  from  influential 
clergymen  (notably  Lowth  and  Kennicott),  and  in 
1792  the  first  volume  appeared,  with  a  dedication  to 
Lord  Petre.1  In  the  preface,  however,  he  committed 
himself  to  critical  views  of  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  both  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants  opened 
their  batteries  upon  him.  He  was,  in  fact,  before  his 
time,  and  knowing  what  he  did  of  the  temper  of  the 
Anglican  bishops  and  the  universities,2  he  should 
perhaps  have  seen  the  wisdom  of  reserving  his  critical 
views  for  a  separate  work.  Vol.  ii.,  continuing  the  work 
as  far  as  Chronicles,  appeared,  under  the  patronage  of 

1  The  title  is  as  follows  :  The  Holy  Bible,  or  the  Books  ac- 
counted sacred  ly  Jews  and  Christians,  faithfully  translated 
front  coi'rected  Texts  of  the  Originals,  with  J  attOUS  Readings, 
Explanatory  Notes,  and  Critical  Remarks. 

•  See  his  letter  to  Eichhorn  (Appendix  to  Memoir). 


6       FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

the  Duchess  of  Gloucester,  in  1797,  but  found  no 
more  friendly  reception.  The  undaunted  scholar, 
however,  brought  out  a  new  work  in  1800,  entitled 
Critical  Remarks  on  the  Hebrezu  Scriptures,  correspond- 
ing with  a  new  Translation  of  the  Bible,  but  paid  the 
penalty.  He  was  suspended  from  his  ecclesiastical 
functions — a  lighter  penalty,  at  any  rate,  than  a  poor 
Bavarian  priest  (Isenbiehl)  had  paid  in  1778  for 
offering  a  critical  interpretation  of  Isa.  vii.  14.  He 
died  in  1802,  leaving  a  nearly-finished  translation  of 
the  Book  of  Psalms,1  and  found  a  competent  bio- 
grapher in  John  Mason  Good,  the  highly-cultured 
translator  of  the  Song  of  Songs. 

The  plan  of  Geddes's  translation  is  admirable:  as  to 
its  execution  it  would  be  ungenerous  to  make  much 
of  shortcomings  which  were  inevitable  a  century  ago. 
Even  in  the  matter  of  style,  one  may  venture  to  think 
that  Geddes's  ideal  of  a  popular  and  comprehensible 
English  was  a  better  one  than  that  of  the  learned 
Bishop  Lowth.  To  say  the  least,  he  deserves  to  be 
had  in  honour  as  an  early  worker  at  the  still  unsolved 
problem  of  Bible-translation.  But  it  is  as  a  pioneer, 
and  to  some  extent  founder  of  criticism,  that  he 
chiefly  interests  us  here.  He  was  recognized  by 
Eichhorn  as  "  almost  the  only  person  "  whose  opinion 
on  his  own  works  he  could  listen   to  with  respect,2 

1  This  was  published  in  1807. 

2  "  Tu  enim  fere  unicus  es,  quern,  si  liceret,  judicem  mihi  ex- 
peterem  ;  quandoquidem  tu  in  litteris  biblicis  habitas,  in  eodem 
stadio  magna  cum  laude  decurris,  omnesque  difficultates  et 
molestias,  quae  talem  cursum  impediunt,  ipsa  experientia  edoct- 


GEDDES.  7 

and  his  Critical  Remarks  were  partly  translated  into 
German,  partly  expanded  by  J.  S.  Vatcr  in  his 
Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch  (1S02-5),  and  so  gave 
rise  to  what  is  commonly  called  the  Gcddcs-Vater 
hypothesis.  The  following  passages  will  probably 
interest  the  reader,  as  containing  Gcddes's  chief 
critical  conclusions.  They  are  taken  from  the  preface 
to  vol.  i.  of  his  Bible  (pp.  xviii — xix). 

"  It  has  been  well  observed  by  Michaelis  that  all 
external  testimony  is  here  of  little  avail  :  it  is  from 
intrinsic  evidence  only  that  we  must  derive  our  proofs. 
Now,  from  intrinsic  evidence,  three  things  to  me  seem 
indubitable.  istly,  The  Pentateuch,  in  its  present 
form,  was  not  written  by  Moses.  2dly,  It  was 
written  in  the  land  of  Chanaan,  and  most  probably 
at  Jerusalem.  3dly,  It  could  not  be  written  before 
the  reign  of  David,  nor  after  that  of  Hezekiah. 
The  long  pacific  reign  of  Solomon  (the  Augustan 
age  of  Judaea)  is  the  period  to  which  I  would  refer 
it :  yet,  I  confess,  there  are  some  marks  of  a  posterior 
date,  or  at  least  of  posterior  interpolation. 

"  But  although  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  the 
Pentateuch  was  reduced  into  its  present  form  in  the 
reign  of  Solomon,  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  it  was 
compiled  from  ancient  documents,  some  of  which  were 
coeval  with  Moses,  and  some  even  anterior  to  Moses. 
Whether  all  these  were  written  records,  or  many  of 

us,  nosti,  ut  adeo  nemo  facile  ad  judicium  tarn  aequius  quam 
rectius  ferendum  cogitari  possit." — Letter  to  Geddes  {Memoir, 
P-  543)- 


8       FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

them  only  oral  traditions,  it  would  be  rash  to  deter- 
mine. .  .  .  Moses,  who  had  been  taught  all  the 
wisdom  of  the  Egyptians,  most  probably  was  the 
first  Hebrew  writer,  or  the  first  who  applied  writing 
to  historical  composition.  From  his  journals  a  great 
part  of  the  Pentateuch  seems  to  have  been  compiled. 
Whether  he  were  also  the  original  author  of  the 
Hebrew  cosmogony,  and  of  the  history  prior  to  his 
own  days,  I  would  neither  confidently  assert,  nor 
positively  deny.  He  certainly  may  have  been  the 
original  author  or  compiler ;  and  may  have  drawn 
the  whole  or  a  part  of  his  cosmogony  and  general 
history,  both  before  and  after  the  deluge,  from  the 
archives  of  Egypt  :  and  those  original  materials, 
collected  first  by  Moses,  may  have  been  worked  up 
into  their  present  form  by  the  compiler  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, in  the  reign  of  Solomon.  But  it  is  also 
possible,  and  I  think  more  probable,  that  the  latter 
was  the  first  collector ;  and  collected  from  such 
documents  as  he  could  find,  either  among  his  own 
people,  or  among  the  neighbouring  nations. 

"  Some  modern  writers,  indeed,  allowing  Moses  to 
be  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  maintain  that  he 
composed  the  book  of  Genesis  from  two  different 
written  documents  ;  which  they  have  attempted  to 
distinguish  by  respective  characteristics.  Although  I 
really  look  upon  this  as  the  work  of  fancy,  and  will 
elsewhere  endeavour  to  prove  it  to  be  so,  I  am  not  so 
self-sufficient  as  to  imagine  that  I  may  not  be  in  the 
wrong,  or  that  they  may  not  be  in  the  right.     The 


GEDDES.  9 

reader  who  wishes  to  see  the  arguments  on  which 
they  ground  their  assertion,  may  consult  Astruc  or 
Eichhorn." 

Now,  although  this  rejection  of  the  "  Document- 
hypothesis  "  of  Eichhorn  (the  details  of  which 
Geddes  proceeds  to  give)  is  not  in  itself  a  proof  of 
sagacity,  yet  Wcstphal  seems  to  me  too  warm  in  his 
invective  against  the  "  Geddes- Vater  theory,"  or  the 
"Fragment-hypothesis,"  as  an  ill-judged  return  to 
the  crude  ideas  of  Spinoza.  The  more  correct  view 
is  certainly  that  given  by  Mr.  Addis,  whose  words  I 
have  the  more  pleasure  in  quoting,  because  of  the 
justice  which  he  has  done  on  an  earlier  page  to  Geddes, 
not  only  as  a  scholar  but  as  a  man. 

"  The  '  Fragment-theory  '  was  in  some  respects  an 
advance  upon  Astruc  and  Eichhorn.  It  extended 
the  investigation  from  Genesis  and  the  beginning  of 
Exodus  to  the  whole  Pentateuch,  and  ceased  to 
assume  that  the  only  documents  in  the  Pentateuch 
were  documents  used  by  Moses.  It  argued,  with 
justice,  that  the  Pentateuch  is  composed  of  sections, 
some  of  which  had  no  original  connection  with  each 
other,  and  that  even  the  documents  which  use  the 
word  Elohim  or  Yahweh  may  be,  and  arc,  of  various 
origin.  It  failed  to  sec  that  the  supposed  '  fragments ' 
might,  on  closer  inspection,  form  themselves  into  two 
or  three  documents."  l 

Nor  can  it  be  said  that  Vater  was  wholly  blind   to 

1   The  Documents  of  the  Hcxaieuch,  vol.  i.  Introd.  p.  xxvii. 


IO      FOUNDERS   OF    OLD    TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

the  evidence  which  led  Astruc  and  Eichhorn  to  form 
the  Document-theory.  Vater  expressly  says  that 
though  the  fragments  of  which  the  Pentateuch  is 
composed  had  originally  no  connection,  yet  it  is  not 
impossible  that  some  fragments  of  the  same  book 
may  come  from  the  same  author,  and  he  is  willing 
to  group  his  fragments  in  two  great  families — 
the  Elohistic  and  the  Jehovistic.  Ilgen  too,  whom 
Westphal  praises  at  the  expense  of  Vater,  maintains 
(as  we  shall  see)  that  the  contents  of  the  three 
documents  of  Genesis  are  derived  from  as  many  as 
seventeen  different  sources.  Two  more  short  quota- 
tions from  Vater's  inspirer  Geddes  may  be  added,  to 
illustrate  his  criticism  of  the  contents  of  Genesis. 

"  I  will  not  pretend  to  say  that  [its  history]  is 
entirely  unmixed  with  the  leaven  of  the  heroic  ages. 
Let  the  father  of  Hebrew  be  tried  by  the  same  rules 
of  criticism  as  Greek  history." 

"  Why  might  not  the  Hebrews  have  their  mytho- 
logy as  well  as  other  nations  ?  and  why  might  not 
their  mythologists  contrive  or  improve  a  system  of 
cosmogony  as  well  as  those  of  Chaldaea,  or  Egypt, 
or  Greece,  or  Italy,  or  Persia,  or  Hindostan  ?" 

So  then,  in  realistic  as  well  as  literary  criticism 
Geddes  is  a  convinced  adherent  of  the  principles  of 
Eichhorn,  from  whom  however,  being  a  man  of  great 
intellectual  independence,  he  does  not  scruple  to 
differ  upon  occasion  {e.g.  on  the  meaning  of  Gen. 
iii.).  That  he  has  a  claim  to  be  reckoned  among 
the   founders    of  criticism,  may   be    seen,    not   only 


GEDDES.  I  i 

from  his  influence  on  Vatcr,  but  by  comparing  him 
with  our  one  eminent  English  pioneer  of  criticism, 
Thomas  Hobbcs.1  It  is  painful  to  think  that  the 
seed  which  Gcddes  sowed  fell,  so  far  as  England 
was  concerned,  on  barren  ground.  What  is  the 
cause  of  this  ?  Geddcs,  as  we  have  seen,  was  no 
Deist,  and,  though  a  Roman  Catholic,  was  socially 
and  intellectually  on  a  level  with  the  best  English 
Protestants.  Anyone  who  would  seek  to  answer  this 
question  would  find — to  apply  some  words  of  Mark 
Pattison — "  that  he  had  undertaken  a  perplexing  but 
not  altogether  profitless  inquiry."  2 

At   any  rate,   whether  we    can   explain   it   or  not, 
there  are  no  more  Englishmen  to  mention  among  the 

1  Hobbes  was  the  first  modern  writer  who  denied  the  Mosaic 
origin  of  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole  on  critical  grounds.  The 
view  expressed  by  Siegfried,  that  he  borrowed  from  Spinoza,  is 
not  in  itself  unplausible,  since  the  theologico-political  system 
of  the  Leviathan  has  points  of  affinity  with  that  of  Spinoza's 
Tractatus  theologico-politicns,  but  is  opposed  to  chronology,  the 
former  work  having  been  published  in  1651,  nineteen  years 
before  Spinoza's  great  work  appeared.  That  the  English 
philosopher  borrowed  from  Ibn  Ezra  (as  seems  to  be  suggested 
in  Bacon's  Ge?ics?'s  of  Genesis,  Introd.  p.  xxiv)  is  of  course  not 
absolutely  impossible,  but  considering  Hobbes's  singular  origin- 
ality, is  hardly  probable.  That  Spinoza  borrowed  from  Hobbcs 
is  also  possible,  but  most  improbable,  the  indebtedness  of  the 
great  Jewish  thinker  being  rather  to  Jewish  than  to  Western 
writers  (putting  aside  Descartes).  [The  passages  in  Hobbcs 
are — Leviathan,  part  3,  ch.  xxxiii.  ;  and  in  Spinoza,  Tract, 
theol.-fiolit.,  ch.  viii.,  "  De  origine  Pentateuchi  "  ;  see  also  ch. 
vii.,  "  De  interpretatione  Scriptura?,"  and  comp.  Siegfried, 
Spinoza  als  Kritiker  und  Ausleger  des  Altcn  Testaments  (Bcrl. 
1867).] 

-  Essays  and  Reviews  (ed.  1869,  p.  39S). 


12      FOUNDERS   OF    OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

founders  or  precursors  of  Old  Testament  criticism 
until  we  come  to  our  own  time.  Indeed,  I  have  only 
given  these  sketches  of  Warburton,  Lowth,  and  Geddes 
because  they  were  natives  of  Great  Britain.  Were  I 
to  linger  over  the  continental  pioneers  of  criticism — 
Baruch  Spinoza,  the  lonely  Jewish  thinker  of  Amster- 
dam ;  Richard  Simon,  the  learned  Oratorian  of  Paris  ; 
Jean  Leclerc,  the  French-Swiss  Hebraist  adopted  by 
the  Amsterdam  Remonstrants  ;  and  especially  Jean 
Astruc,  professor  of  medicine  in  various  French 
colleges, — I  should  exceed  the  limits  of  this  work, 
and  enter  into  competition  with  an  excellent  American 
writer  who  has  given  us  a  monograph  on  the  early 
critics  of  the  Pentateuch,  Dr.  S.  I.  Curtiss  of  Chicago.1 

1  See  his  "  Sketches  of  Pentateuch  Criticism,"  Bibliotheca 
Sacra,  Jan.  and  Oct.  1884,  and  comp.  the  parallel  portions  of 
Westphal's  able  work  referred  to  in  my  preface.  On  Richard 
Simon  see  also  Bernus,  7?.  Simoii  et  son  histoire  critique 
(Lausanne,  1869),  and  a  resume  in  the  Revue  des  deux  mondes. 


CHAPTER    II. 

THE   OPENING   OF    METHODICAL   CRITICISM    IN 
GERMANY — EICIIIIORN   AND   ILGEN. 

My  own  series  of  portraits  of  Old  Testament  critics 
begins  with  J.  G.  Eichhorn,  whom,  for  reasons  which 
I  will  give  presently,  I  venture  to  call  the  founder  of 
modern  Old  Testament  criticism.  I  wish  to  show 
that  he  was  not  merely  a  "dry  rationalist,"  as  Mr. 
Addis  represents,  but  a  man  of  many-sided  culture, 
and  not  without  Church-feeling,  a  friend  of  science, 
and  also  a  servant  of  religion,  sensitive  to  the  best 
influences  of  his  time,  though  not  in  advance  of  his 
age.  Eichhorn  was  born  Oct.  \6,  1752,  and  was  the 
son  of  a  pastor  in  a  small  principality  now  absorbed 
in  the  kingdom  of  Wurtemberg.  At  Easter  1770  he 
went  to  Gottingen,  where  the  wise  liberality  of  our 
George  II.,  stimulated  by  his  minister  Miinchhauscn, 
had  founded  (in  1734)  the  famous  Georgia  Augusta 
university.  There  it  was  only  natural  that  he  should 
be  profoundly  affected  by  t\\Q genius  loci.  The  spirit 
of  classical  literature  and  of  historical  research,  equally 
with  that  of  a  moderate  orthodox  theology,  could  not 
fail  to  pass  into  his  sensitive  mind.     These  were  all 


14       FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

subjects  which  Munchhausen  as  a  statesman  desired 
to  foster,  and  they  were  cultivated  with  pre-eminent 
success  in  the  old  Gottingen  university.  In  theology 
Eichhorn  had  among  his  teachers  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
the  Biblical  scholar,  and  Walch,  the  not-yet-forgotten 
Church  historian  ;  classical  philology  he  studied  under 
Heyne,  who  admitted  him  into  his  Seminar,  and 
obtained  for  him  in  1774  his  first  appointment  as 
rector  of  the  gymnasium  at  OhrdrufT,  in  the  duchy  of 
Gotha.  How  Eichhorn  came  to  be  smitten  with  the 
love  of  the  East,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  say.  But  the 
titles  of  his  earliest  works  (from  1774  onwards)  suffi- 
ciently prove  that  Mohammedan  history,  and  Arabic 
and  Syriac  literature,  were  the  favourite  subjects  of 
the  young  graduate,  and  this  accounts  for  the  fact  that 
in  1775  he  was  appointed  professor  of  Oriental  lan- 
guages in  the  university  of  Jena,  where  in  the  preceding 
year  he  had  already  taken  his  doctor's  degree.  Hence 
it  was  not  merely  as  a  theologian  (this  he  could  not 
help  being,  for  theology  was  then  in  the  atmosphere) 
but  as  an  Orientalist  that  he  approached  the  study  of 
the  Old  Testament.  I  would  ask  the  reader  to  take 
special  notice  of  this  fact,  because  Eichhorn  set  the 
tone  to  his  successors,  by  whom  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
were  constantly  treated,  not  merely  as  the  vehicle  of 
a  revelation,  but  as  in  form  Oriental  books,  to  be 
interpreted  in  accordance  with  the  habits  of  mind  of 
Semitic  peoples.  (It  is  from  Eichhorn  and  his  more 
celebrated  friend  Herder  that  the  custom  of  referring 
to   the    "  Orientalism M    of  the  Scriptures   is    mainly 


EICHHORN.  15 

derived.)  1  must  not  pause  here  to  defend  or  explain 
this  "  Orientalizing"  "  of  books  which  the  traditional 
orthodoxy  had  been  accustomed  to  regard  as  in  all 
senses  unique.  The  best  defence  and  explanation  is 
to  refer,  not  to  the  first  tentative  and  faulty  efforts  of 
Eichhorn  and  Herder,  but  to  works  of  our  own  time 
(belonging  to  different  schools),  which  may  be  "known 
and  read  of  all  men."  It  would  be  possible,  no  doubt, 
to  gather  from  Eichhorn  explanations  of  miraculous 
narratives,  and  of  difficult  passages  of  prophecy,  which 
strike  even  critics  who  are  no  apologists  as  immature 
and  arbitrary.  But  this  only  shows  that  he  is  a  be- 
ginner in  the  arduous  work  of  entering  into  the  ideas 
and  circumstances  of  the  Biblical  writers,  and  that 
he  sometimes  forgets  that,  on  his  own  theory,  there 
is  a  divine  element  in  the  Bible  which  no  other  litera- 
ture contains  in  anything  like  the  same  degree.  And 
if  Eichhorn  was  sometimes  unjust  to  Biblical  narra- 
tives and  prophecies,  not  only  in  his  books,  but  in 
his  academical  lectures,  yet  this  was  the  error  of  a 
good  and  Christian  man,  who  was  in  his  own  way 
an  apologist,1  and  whose  reverent  spirit  could  not  but 

1  Comp.  Bertheau,  art.  "Eichhorn,"  in  Herzog-Plitt,  Real- 
encyclopedic,  Bd  iv.  ;  Westphal,  Lcs  sources,  &c,  i.  120.  How- 
great  was  the  need  of  critical  apologists  may  be  gathered  from 
the  appendix  to  the  Wolfcnbitttcl  Fragments  published  after 
Lessing's  death  in  1787,  in  which,  while  admitting  the  Mosaic 
redaction  of  the  Pentateuch,  Rcimarus  inveighs  passionately 
against  the  author  or  compiler.  That  Eichhorn  was  equal  to  the 
task* of  defending  Biblical  religion  against  it>  foes,  1  .mnot  indeed 
be  maintained  (sec  Blcck, Introduction  (by  Venables),  §  8).    His 


1 6       FOUNDERS   OF   OLD  TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

neutralize  any  evil  influence  from  his  intellectual 
mistake.  An  early  biographer  in  fact  assures  us  that 
"  faith  in  that  which  is  holy  even  in  the  miracles  of 
the  Bible  was  never  shattered  by  Eichhorn  in  any 
youthful  mind."  1 

Eichhorn,  as  we  have  seen,  went  to  Jena  in  1775. 
It  was  an  event  of  great  importance,  both  for  his 
theological  and  for  his  general  culture.  Seldom  has 
there  been  a  theologian  of  such  a  width  of  interests 
as  Eichhorn,  and  we  can  hardly  help  ascribing  this 
to  the  varied  intellectual  stimulus  which  Jena  at  that 
time  supplied.  In  that  very  same  year  another  young 
man  of  promise  entered  the  little  duchy  of  Saxe 
Weimar :  it  was  Goethe.  And  in  the  autumn  of  the 
following  year,  a  slightly  older  man,  destined  to  great 
things,  followed  his  friend  Goethe:  it  was  Herder,  who 
had  accepted  the  office  of  Court  Preacher  and  General 
Superintendent  at  Weimar.  That  Eichhorn  took  a 
keen  interest  in  the  literary  movement  of  the  time, 
is  certain  from  his  later  works  on  the  history  of 
literature.  It  was  his  hope  to  contribute  to  the 
winning  back  of  the  educated  classes  to  religion,  and 
he  may  well  have  thought  that  in  order  to  do  this 
he  must  drink  full  draughts  of  general  culture.  In 
this  enterprise  he  found  a  natural  ally  in  Herder, 
who   was    a   theologian    among    the    litterateurs,    as 

pupil  Ewald  was  at  any  rate  better  equipped,  both  critically  and 
religiously  ;  for  he  too  was  proud  to  be  an  "  apologist." 

1  H.  Doring,  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  Allgemeine  Eucydopddicy 
(I.)  xxxi.  (1838). 


EICHHORN.  17 

Eichhorn  was  a  litterateur  among  the  theologians. 
The  friends  had  their  first  meeting  in  the  summer  of 
1780.  They  saw  each  other  often,  and  began  a  regular 
correspondence.  In  1780  appeared  one  of  Herder's 
most  charming  books  (the  contents  of  which  have 
now  happily  become  commonplace  l) — the  Letters  on 
the  Study  of  Theology;  in  1782-83  his  still  more 
important  work,  The  Spirit  of  Hebrezv  Poetry.  To 
both  of  these  Eichhorn  was  able  to  give  his  hearty 
approval  and  admiration,  and  between  the  two  ap- 
peared the  first  part  of  his  own  great  work,  the 
Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  (completed  in  1783). 
It  was  a  happy  time  of  mutual  intercourse  and  in- 
debtedness. I  think  it  worth  while  to  -state  this, 
because  M.  Westphal  has  considerably  exaggerated 
the  dependence  of  Eichhorn  on  Herder.  It  is  true 
that  Eichhorn  in  his  letters  is  never  weary  of  con- 
fessing that  he  lives  upon  Herder's  ideas,  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  was  chiefly  a  general  fertilizing 
influence  which  the  Weimar  divine  exercised  upon 
the  Jena  professor.  Such  ideas  as  Eichhorn  took 
from   Herder  were  subjected  by  him   to  the  testing 

1  Herder's  attitude  towards  the  question  of  Bible  inspiration, 
for  instance,  is  that  which  all  our  best  critical  scholars  now  take 
up.  "  I  take  vastly  more  pleasure  in  winning  a  lively  apprehen- 
sion of  the  divine  in  these  writings,"  he  says  (Letter  xii.),  "than 
in  racking  my  brains  as  to  the  exact  manner  in  which  it  existed 
in  the  soul  of  the  writers,  or  upon  their  tongue,  or  in  their  pen. 
We  do  not  understand  in  what  a  number  of  human  effects  our 
soul  displays  itself,  and  shall  we  decide  how  manifoldly  or  how 
simply  God  works  upon  it  ?  We  cannot  get  to  the  bottom  of  a 
single  word  of  God  in  nature." 

C 


XS       FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT    CRITICISM. 

of  a  cooler  mind,  and  re-issued  with  the  stamp  of  his 
own  characteristic  conceptions.  On  reading  Eichhorn's 
third  volume,  Herder  confesses  in  the  frankest  manner 
that  his  friend  has  anticipated  him  in  a  number  of 
thoughts,  as  he  himself  had  a  few  years  before  antici- 
pated Eichhorn.  On  the  score  of  learning  and  critical 
power,  M.  Westphal  would  not  deny  that  the  superi- 
ority lies  with  Eichhorn,  and  Herder  himself  gener- 
ously admires  the  "  treasures  of  knowlege,  criticism, 
and  taste  "  in  his  friend's  work.  What  indeed  would 
Herder  have  effected  without  such  a  helper  as 
Eichhorn  ?  He  could  but  give  general  ideas,  and 
stir  up  an  enthusiastic  admiration  for  the  "  spirit  of 
Hebrew  poetry."  But  how  few  books  were  there 
that  he  could  recommend  for  the  study  of  details  ! 
In  the  first  edition  of  the  Letters  on  Theology  (1789), 
he  has  to  admit  that  "  we  have  not  as  yet  a  proper 
critical  introduction  to  the  Old  Testament."  In  the 
second  (1785)  he  appends  to  this  the  footnote,  "We 
have  it  now  in  Eichhorn's  valuable  Introduction." 

But  had  Eichhorn  no  like-minded  theological 
colleagues  in  Jena  ?  He  had  Griesbach,  the  famous 
New  Testament  text-critic,  who  could  no  doubt  have 
cautioned  him  against  attempting  too  much,  and 
against  neglecting  accuracy  in  small  things.  Some- 
what later  he  had  Doederlein,  who  was  a  bright, 
progressive  scholar,  remembered  now  chiefly  by  his 
Isaiah  (1775),  but  in  his  own  day  noted  as  a  reformer 
of  the  Biblical  and  other  proofs  of  dogmatic  theology. 
But  Herder  was  all  the  more  valuable  to  Eichhorn 


EICHHORN.  19 

because  he  was  not  a  professor ;  width  of  range, 
literary  insight,  and  Church-feeling,  were  Hcrderian 
characteristics  which  Eichhorn  needed  to  carry  out 
his  mission.  Afterwards  it  was  concentration  and 
the  minute  study  of  details  that  were  needed  ;  and 
then  a  crowd  of  illustrious  workers  appeared — the 
true  "founders  of  criticism."  But  all  these  stand  on 
the  shoulders  of  Herder  and  Eichhorn,  and  even  if 
but  little  of  their  historical  construction  should  be 
left  standing,  Old  Testament  scholars  will  still  be 
bound  to  respect  them  as  pioneers.  Well  does  the 
aged  Goethe,  in  the  notes  to  the  Westostlicher  Divan, 
congratulate  himself  on  having  known  the  time  when 
Herder  and  Eichhorn  together  opened  up  to  himself 
and  his  contemporaries  a  new  source  of  pure  delight 
in  the  Biblical  literature  !  Would  that  he  could  have 
gone  further,  and  expressed  obligations  of  another 
and  a  still  higher  character.  For  Herder  at  any  rate 
was  a  prophet.1 

In  1788  Eichhorn's  residence  at  Jena  came  to  a 
close.  He  was  invited  back  to  Gottingen  as  an 
ordinary  professor  in  the  faculty  of  philosophy.  He 
found  his  old  professors,  Michaelis  and  Hcync. 
still  alive.  With  the  former  he  had  only  three  more 
years  of  intercourse,  and  this  intercourse  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  altogether  friendly.  The  great 
classical  scholar  Heyne,  however  (who  died  in  18 12), 
must  have  welcomed    him  with   open  arms.     For  in 

1   Haym,  Herder  nath  scincm  Lcben  und  sei/ieu    Werken^  ii. 

(1885),  PP-  1S5,  186. 


20      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

1789  came  an  official  letter  to  Herder  in  Heyne's 
hand,  in  which  the  great  poet  and  theologian  was 
invited  to  Gottingen  as  professor  of  history  and 
chief  university  preacher.  One  of  the  principal 
arguments  urged  by  Heyne  was  this — that  the  theo- 
logical atmosphere  in  the  university  had  completely 
changed,  and  that  even  those  who  had  once  been 
hostile  to  Herder  (this  was  the  second  time  that  he  had 
a  chance  of  going  to  Gottingen)  now  regarded  him  as 
a  pillar  of  the  Church.1  How  would  Eichhorn  have 
rejoiced,  if  his  friend  could  have  joined  him  in  the  un- 
romantic  and  quarrelsome  northern  university  !  But 
it  was  not  to  be — Herder,  as  his  friends  said,  was  "  too 
good  to  be  a  professor,"  and  was  persuaded  to  remain  at 
Weimar.  Eichhorn,  at  any  rate,  was  not  discouraged. 
He  lectured,  we  are  told,  twenty-four  hours,  or  more, 
in  the  week,2  and  not  only  on  the  Semitic  languages, 
but  on  the  whole  of  the  Bible,3  and  even  on  political 
history.  Another  Fetch,  moreover — that  of  the  history 
of  literature — was  committed  entirely  to  him.  That 
he  lectured  thus  widely,  one  cannot,  in  the  interests 
of  accurate  study,  help  regretting.  One  thinks  of 
Renan's  dream  of  devoting  one  lifetime  to  Semitic 
philology,  another  to  history,  and  so  forth  ;  here  is 
a  scholar  of  such  versatility  and  power,  that  he  can 
do  two  or  three  men's  work  in  one  lifetime.  How 
much  of  this  work  of  Eichhorn's  really  influenced  the 

1  Haym.  2  Bertheau. 

3  His  Introduction  to  the  N.  T.,  which  appeared  in  1804 — 
1 814,  may  especially  be  mentioned. 


KICHHORN.  21 

progress  of  science,  is  of  course  another  question. 
He  taught  many  things,  and  produced  many  works  ; 
but  did  he  attain  many  important  results  ?  It  may 
be  doubted.  On  the  other  hand,  he  must  have 
stimulated  many  younger  men,  and  by  his  books  and 
innumerable  articles  he  opened  many  discussions, 
both  on  the  Old  and  on  the  New  Testament,  which 
lasted  for  a  long  time  afterwards.  He  had  the 
privilege  of  dying  in  the  midst  of  his  work,  full  of 
honours,  June  27,  1827.  His  son,  K.  F.  Eichhorn, 
was  the  celebrated  jurist  and  Prussian  Minister  of 
Worship,  a  friend  and  admirer  of  Schleiermacher, 
though  rather  on  his  practical  than  on  his  more 
strictly  theological  side. 

Let  me  then  pass  over  all  Eichhorn's  minor  works 
(with  just  a  brief  reference  to  his  services  as  a  re- 
viewer of  contemporary  literature,  from  which  I  have 
elsewhere  derived  profit  myself),1  and  confine  my 
attention  to  his  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament. 
The  success  of  this  work  was  phenomenal  ;  it  went 
through  four  editions  in  the  author's  lifetime,  be- 
sides two  pirated  editions,  and  exercised  as  much 
influence  upon  opinion  in  that  day  as  Wellhauscn's 
Prolegomena  has  done  in  our  own  time.  A  long  list  of 
books  might  be  given  in  proof  of  the  latter  statement, 
instead  of  which  I  will  simply  quote  the  calm  assur- 
ance of  J.  P.  Gabler,  "  the  father  of  Biblical  theo- 
logy" (who  in  1791-93   republished   Eichhorn's  early 

1  Cheync,  Job  and  Solomon,  p.  260. 


22      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

work,  Die  Urgeschichte}  with  an  introduction),  that 
the  analysis  of  Genesis  into  two  documents  "  can  in 
our  day  be  regarded  as  settled  and  pre-supposed,  with- 
out fear  of  any  important  opposition."  2  This  remark 
of  course  only  applies  to  Germany.  In  England  the 
book  only  seems  to  have  had  one  warm  friend  (besides 
Dr.  Geddes) — the  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew  at 
Cambridge,  H.  Lloyd,  who  tried  in  vain  to  obtain 
church  and  university  patronage  for  a  translation. 

The  style  of  Eichhorn's  Introduction  has  been 
called  rhetorical.  Certainly  it  contrasts  with  the 
conventional  style  of  seventeenth-century  theology. 
But  this  was  one  chief  element  in  its  success ;  it  was 
written  for  Herder  and  for  Goethe,  as  well  as  for 
Michaelis  and  the  Zunfttheologen.  As  the  author 
himself  observes,  a  new  writer  is  bound  to  make 
concessions  to  the  fashionable  literary  tone,  and,  as 
one  may  add,  this  work  was  not  only  by  a  new  writer, 
but  was  the  first  of  its  kind,  for  neither  Carpzov  nor 
even  Michaelis  can  be  said  to  enter  at  all  into  com- 
petition with  Eichhorn.  Let  us  listen  to  his  own 
words — 

"  My  greatest  trouble  I  had  to  bestow  on  a  hitherto 

1  A  critical  examination  of  the  narratives  in  the  early  part  of 
Genesis,  which  first  appeared  anonymously  in  Eichhorn's 
Repertorium  (for  Biblical  and  Oriental  literature)  in  1779. 
Gabler  was  about  the  same  age  as  Eichhorn,  and  was  one  of 
his  earliest  disciples  at  Jena,  where  he  afterwards  became  a 
professor.  Cf.  Krummacher's  sketch  of  him  in  his  Autobio- 
graphy (Edinb.  1867),  p.  68. 

2  Quoted  by  Dr.  Briggs,  Presbyterian  Review,  iv.  91. 


EICHHORN.  23 

un worked  field — on  the  investigation  of  the  inner 
nature  of  the  several  writings  of  the  Old  Testament 
with  the  help  of  the  Higher  Criticism  (not  a  new 
name  to  any  humanist)."  l  By  "  higher  criticism  " 
he  means  the  analysis  of  a  book  into  its  earlier  and 
its  later  elements.  He  comes  forward  as  a  defender 
of  the  "  genuineness  "  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  in  order  to  prove  this  "  genuineness,"  he 
claims  the  right  to  assume  that  "  most  of  the  writings 
of  the  Hebrews  have  passed  through  several  hands." 
This,  he  remarks,  has  been  the  fate  of  all  ancient 
books,  and  he  adds  that — 

"  Even  the  manner  in  which  many  of  the  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament  came  into  existence  makes  it 
necessary  that  there  should  be  in  them  an  alterna- 
tion of  old  and  new  passages  and  sections.  Very  few 
of  them  came  from  the  hand  of  their  authors  in  their 
present  form."  2 

It  is  true  that  Eichhorn  had  been  preceded,  at  least 
as  a  critic  of  Genesis,  by  Astruc.  One  might  naturally 
infer  from  the  similarity  of  their  results  that  Eichhorn 
was  indebted  to  his  predecessor.  In  this  case,  the 
credit  due  to  Eichhorn  would  still  be  great,  for  with- 
out him,  it  might  be  contended,  Astruc's  results  would 
have  been  as  completely  lost  to  science  as  those  of 
Ilgen  were  afterwards.  But  it  has  been  proved  by 
Boehmer  and  Westphal  that  Astruc's  work  was  only 
known  to  Eichhorn  at  second  hand.    When  therefore 

1  Preface  to  second  edition.  -  EinleUung,  i.  92. 


24      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

the  latter  makes  the  positive  assertion  that  he  has 
arrived  at  his  results  independently  of  Astruc,  we 
have  no  reason  for  doubting  his  veracity ;  and  when 
he  lays  claim  to  being  the  first  to  observe  the  dupli- 
cate narrative  of  the  flood  in  Genesis,  we  both  may 
and  must  accept  his  statement  (the  article  by  Michaelis, 
which  was  one  of  Eichhorn's  chief  sources  of  informa- 
tion respecting  Astruc,  misrepresents  that  critic's 
view  of  Gen.  vii.). 

And  now  as  to  Eichhorn's  conclusions,  more 
especially  with  regard  to  the  Pentateuch.1  The  early 
history,  he  thinks,  is  made  up  chiefly  of  two  docu- 
ments, Jehovistic  and  Elohistic,  the  former  of  which 
ends  shortly  before  the  death  of  Joseph  (Gen.  1.  14), 
the  latter  with  the  first  public  appearance  of  Moses 
(Ex.  iii.  25).  These  documents,  according  to  him,  were 
combined  as  they  now  stand  at  the  end  of  the  Mosaic 
age,  or  soon  afterwards,  though  often  in  fragmentary 
form,  and  with  not  unfrequent  glosses.2  The  lives  of 
Abraham  and  of  Isaac  are  almost  entirely  taken 
from  the  Jehovistic,  those  of  Jacob  and  of  Joseph 
from  the  Elohistic  source.  The  four  later  "  books  of 
Moses"  grew  out  of  separate  writings  of  Moses  and 
of  some  of  his  contemporaries.  Among  the  many 
features  of  this  part  of  the  Einleitung  which  deserve 

1  Einleitung,  iii.  (Mosaische  Schriften).  I  have  used  the 
fourth  edition  (1823). 

2  Eichhorn  also  admits  certain  separate  documents,  viz.  ii. 
4 — iv.  24;  xiv.  ;  xxxiii.  18 — xxxiv.  31  ;  xxxvi.  ;  xlix.  1 — 27.  He 
thinks  too  that  chap.  x.  may  have  been  borrowed  by  the  Jehovist 
from  the  Phoenicians. 


EICHHORN.  25 

notice  are  the  thoughtful  characterization  of  the 
documents  (in  which  the  Jchovist  is  rightly  dis- 
tinguished from  the  Elohist  by  a  diversity  of  ideas  as 
well  as  of  language),  and  the  distinction  between  the 
priests'  code  of  the  middle  books,  and  the  people's 
law-book  in  Deuteronomy.  Nothing,  we  are  assured, 
hangs  on  the  name  of  the  compiler.1  As  to  Eich- 
horn's  analysis,  it  is  surely  a  proof  of  his  sagacity  (as 
well  as  of  the  cogency  of  the  evidence)  that  he  has 
assigned  to  the  Elohist  almost  all  those  passages  of 
Genesis  which  are  now  unanimously  assigned  by 
analysts  to  the  document  commonly  designated 
PC  or  P.  These  are  better  grounds  for  a  favourable 
verdict  upon  Eichhorn's  critical  character  than  those 
apologetic  tendencies  which  conciliated  the  regard  of 
the  late  learned  but  uncritical  Dr.  Edersheim.2  It  is 
a  defect  and  not  a  merit  of  Eichhorn  that  he  still 
thinks  the  cause  of  true  religion  (or  at  any  rate  of  the 
Bible)  to  be  to  some  extent  bound  up  with  the 
Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  One  may  excuse 
him  (having  regard  to  the  recent  Deistic  controversy), 
but  one  cannot  help  regretting  that  even  he  was  touched 
by  the  polemical  spirit.  His  other  critical  results 
need  not  be  catalogued  here.  Suffice  it  to  say  that, 
compared  with  later  critics,  he  is  strikingly  conserv- 

1  In  the  edition  of  1790  Eichhorn  says  that  Moses  may  have 
written,  or  compiled,  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  This  state- 
ment was  afterwards  modified. 

2  Prophecy  and  History,  &c.  (1885),  pp.  194 — 196.  Appendix 
1.  gives  Eichhorn's  distribution  of  Genesis  in  three  parallel 
columns. 


26       FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

ative,  though  even  he  has  a  clear  perception  of  the 
Maccabaean  date  of  Dan.  vii. — xii.  The  religious  con- 
tents of  the  several  books  do  not,  however,  receive 
their  due  from  this  early  critic,  who  was  a  child  of 
the  Aiifklarung,  though,  partly  through  the  influence 
of  Herder,  he  strove  to  overcome  its  prejudices.  In 
this  respect,  as  we  shall  see  later,  he  contrasts  strik- 
ingly with  his  great  disciple,  Ewald. 

From  Eichhorn  it  is  natural  to  pass  to  Karl  David 
Ilgen  (1763 — 1834),  who  was  Eichhorn's  successor  at 
Jena,  and  most  effectually  supplemented  his  critical 
work  on  Genesis.  In  Ilgen  the  school-master  dwarfed 
the  scholar ;  he  is  now  remembered  chiefly  as  Rector 
of  the  scholastic  foundation  of  Schulpforte  (for  which 
he  did  fully  as  much  as  Arnold  did  for  Rugby),  and 
as  the  teacher  of  the  great  classical  scholar,  Gottfried 
Hermann.  A  striking  sketch  of  his  appearance  and 
character  is  given  by  Otto  Jahn  in  his  memorial 
sketch  of  Hermann,  for  every  word  of  which  there  is 
authority  in  the  short  but  interesting  Latin  biography 
of  Ilgen  by  F.  K.  Kraft.  That  such  a  man  should 
be  an  eminent  Biblical  critic,  would  be  surprising  in 
our  day,  but  in  the  infancy  of  criticism,  when  all 
problems  were  new,  and  at  any  rate  appeared  simple, 
it  was  nothing  extraordinary.  Ilgen's  classical 
scholarship  was  extensive,  and  due  more  to  his  own 
exertions  than  to  his  teachers ;  he  was  not  disposed 
to  fall  in  with  routine,  and  when  duty  or  inclination 
called  him  to  Biblical  research,  it  was  only  to  be 
expected  that  there  should  be  some  fair  fruits  of  his 


[LGEN.  27 

studies.     It  was   in    1789  (while  Rector  of  the  gym- 
nasium at  Naumburg)  that  he  made  his  first  contri- 
bution   to    Old    Testament    criticism,    entitled   Jobi 
antiquissimi  carminis  Hebraici  natura  atquc  virtutes. 
I    will    not    claim    much   merit    for    this  early  work, 
which,    as    Ewald    remarks    {Das    Buck    /job,    1854, 
"  Vorrede,"  p.  xx),  nowhere  touches  solid  ground,  and 
actually  propounds  the  hypothesis  that  the  Book  of 
Job    is    a    pre-Mosaic,   non-Israclitish    work.      The 
hypothesis   has    long   since    become  antiquated,  but 
seemed    not    improbable    to    many   scholars    of  that 
period,1  so  that  we  need  not  wonder  that  its  author 
was    appointed     to    the    professorship    vacated    by 
Eichhorn  in  1788,  and,  as  it  would  seem,  not.  at  once 
filled  up.2     While  at  Jena  (1794 — 1802)   Ilgen  threw 
himself  into  the  varied   intellectual  interests  of  the 
place — those  were  the  palmy  days  when  Fichte  and 
Schelling,  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt,  and  the  Schlegels 
adorned    its    university.     He   lectured,  we    arc   told, 
both  on  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  and  on  the  history  of 
philosophy/3  and  was  strengthened  in  the  resolution 
to  practise  Biblical  criticism  "  with  the  same  subtlety 
with  which  one  is  wont  to  practise  Greek  and  Latin 
literature."     In   1795   he  brought  out  a   Commcntatio 

1  Cheyne,  Job  and  Solomon,  p.  97. 

2  I  follow  the  very  positive  statement  of  Kraft  {Vita  llgcnii, 
1S37,  p.  49). 

3  The  famous  rationalist  Paulus,  too,  thought  it  a  theologian's 
duty  to  follow  the  progress  of  philosophy  (letter  to  decides  in 
Good's  Memoir  of '  Gcddcs,  p.  540),  though  he  never  became  very 
philosophical. 


28       FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

de  notione  tituli  Filii  Dei  (referred  to  by  De  Wette  in 
his  early  work  on  Deuteronomy),  and  in  1799  a 
critical  edition  of  Tobit  (the  only  special  treatise  on 
that  book  mentioned  by  De  Wette  in  his  Introduction). 
Between  these  less  important  works  falls  one  of  which 
I  give  the  title  in  full, — 

Die  Urkunden  des  Jerusalem' 'schen  Tempelarchivs  in 
Hirer  Urgestalt,  als  Beytrag  zur  BericJitigung  der 
Geschichte  der  Religion  tuid  Politik  aus  dem  Hebrd- 
ischen  mit  kritischen  und  erkldrenden  Aninerkiingen, 
auch  mancherley  dazu  gehorigen  Abhandlungen^  von 
Karl  David  Ilgen,  Prof,  der  Philosophic  und  der 
oriental.  Literatur  in  Jena.    Erster  Theil.    Halle,  1798. 

The  merits  of  this  remarkable  work  were  to  some 
extent  recognized  by  Ewald  (at  a  time,  as  Ewald 
remarks,  when  his  deserts  were  very  generally  over- 
looked) in  the  first  volume  of  his  History  (ed.  1),  but 
it  is  only  of  late  years  that  his  right  place  as  a 
"  founder  of  criticism "  has  been  assigned  to  him. 
Although  I  have  not  been  able  myself  to  see  the 
book  on  which  his  fame  rests,1  I  venture  to  endorse 
the  praise  which  it  has  lately  received  from  others. 
It  has  evidently  some  rare  merits,  and  its  equally 
striking  defects  may  easily  be  pardoned  in  consider- 
ation of  its  very  early  date.  The  thesis  which  it 
supports  is  briefly  this.  The  Book  of  Genesis,  as  it 
stands,  is  composed  of  seventeen  documents,  which 
originally  had  a  separate  existence.     They  proceed, 

1  Ilgen's  book  is,  in  fact,  rarer  than  Astruc's  Conjectures. 


ILGEN.  29 

however,  from  (probably,  or  at  any  rate  possibly)  not 
more  than  three  independent  writers,  whom  Ilgen 
calls  respectively  Sophcr  Eliel  liavishdn,  Sophcr  Elicl 
JiasJisJicni,  and  SopJicr  ElijaJi  hat is lion  {i.e.  the  first 
and  second  Elohist,  and  the  first  Yahwist),  and 
whose  dates  he  reserves  for  future  consideration.  To 
recognize  and  reconstitute  these  records  is  no  doubt 
difficult,  but  this  is  simply  owing  to  the  mutilation 
which  they  could  not  help  suffering  at  the  hands  of 
the  redactor.  Those  who  are  acquainted  with  recent 
criticism  will  at  once  be  struck  by  the  modern  air  of 
Ilgen's  theory,  and  will  perhaps  be  surprised  that  its 
merits  were  so  long  overlooked.  The  reason  is  that 
the  more  cautious  analysts  who  followed  Ilgen  and 
Dc  Wette  were  startled  by  Ilgen's  large  concession 
to  the  adherents  of  the  Fragment-hypothesis.  They 
also  took  offence  at  his  frequent  and  apparently 
arbitrary  alterations  of  the  divine  names,  his  partiality 
for  the  readings  of  the  LXX.  and  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  and  his  breaking  up  of  the  text  into 
minute  fragments.  More  than  fifty  years  afterwards, 
when  the  fair-minded  Hupfeld  read  the  book,  he  was 
repelled  (as  he  informs  us)  by  these  characteristics, 
and  it  was  only  after  he  had  himself  rediscovered  the 
"second  Elohist"  that  he  perceived  how  many  points 
of  contact  his  own  analysis  had  with  Ilgen's,  and  how 
many  delicate  observations  his  predecessor  had  made 
on  the  linguistic  usage  of  the    documents.1     In  our 

1  Die  Quellen  tier  Genesis  (1S53),  "  Vorrcde."  pp.  viii— x. 


30      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

own  day  there  are  many  critics  of  Genesis  who  trace 
the  hand  of  a  second  Yahwist  (the  Yahwists  were,  in 
fact,  perhaps  a  school  of  writers)  ;  and  this  too  has 
been  anticipated  by  Ilgen,  who,  as  we  have  seen, 
designates  one  of  the  writers  in  Genesis,  "  the  first 
Sopher  Elijah." 1  No  wonder  that  contemporary 
scholars  are  loud  in  their  admiration  of  this  neglected 
critic,  whose  achievements  in  Genesis,  had  he  been 
able  to  continue  his  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch,  might 
have  been  followed  up  by  others  equally  brilliant. 
But  in  1802  Ilgen  left  Jena  for  Schulpforte,  and  so 
his  work  remained  a  torso ;  Part  II.  never  appeared. 

1  See  especially  Westphal,  Les  sources,  &c,  torn,  i.,  who  gives 
on  pp.  140-41  a  conspectus  of  Ilgen's  analysis,  and  Cornill, 
Einleitiuig^yp.  19-20.  Both  refer  to  Ilgen's  admirable  treatment 
of  the  composite  story  of  Joseph,  in  which  this  early  critic  an- 
ticipates the  best  points  of  Wellhausen's  analysis. 


CHAPTER    III. 

DE  WETTE — GESENIUS. 

To  the  same  little  German  duchy,  to  which  we  arc 
in  some  sense  indebted  both  for  Eichhorn  and  for 
Ilgen,  we  owe  the  subject  of  our  next  sketch — W.  M. 
L.  De  Wette.  This  great  theologian,  whose  life  is  so 
full  of  suggestiveness  to  thoughtful  readers,  was  born 
at  Ulla,  near  Weimar,  Jan.  12,  1780.  He  was  the 
eldest  son  of  the  pastor  of  the  place,  and  was  educated 
at  the  Weimar  gymnasium.  During  his  school-time 
he  came  into  contact  with  Herder,  whose  pleasantness 
as  an  examiner  and  sweet  seriousness  as  a  preacher 
were  printed  deep  in  the  lad's  memory.  In  1799  he 
went  to  the  university  of  Jena,  where  for  a  time 
Gabler  and  Paulus  converted  him  to  their  own  cold 
and  superficial  rationalism,  from  the  depressing 
effects  of  which  he  was  rescued,  as  he  tells  us  himself, 
through  philosophy.  His  deliverer  was,  however, 
not  Schelling  (whom  he  heard  with  admiration  but 
without  conviction),  but  J.  F.  Fries,  a  too  little  known 
philosopher,  brought  up,  like  Schlciermachcr,  among 
the  Moravian  Brethren,  and  full  of  strong  religious 
instincts,  who  sought   to  unite  the  criticism  of  Kant 


32      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD    TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

with  the  faith-philosophy  of  Jacobi.  In  1805  De 
Wette  took  his  doctor's  degree  and  became  privat- 
docent)  offering  for  his  dissertation  a  treatise  on 
Deuteronomy,1  in  which  this  among  other  critical 
points  is  argued  with  much  force — that  on  internal 
grounds  Deuteronomy  must  be  of  later  origin  than 
the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  the  kernel  of  it 
was  written  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  Some  of  the 
critical  views  expressed  or  suggested  in  this  work 
agreed  with  those  of  Vater  in  a  famous  dissertation 
appended  to  his  commentary  on  the  Pentateuch, 
but  the  generous  interest  displayed  by  this  scholar 
in  his  young  rival  induced  the  latter  to  go  on  with  the 
preparation  of  a  larger  work.  This  appeared  in  two 
duodecimo  volumes  in  1806-7  under  the  title  of 
Contributions  to  Old  Testameiit  Introduction  (I  will 
call  it  henceforth  the  Beitrage),  with  a  sensible  but 
cautious  preface  to  vol.  i.  by  Griesbach.  The  opinions 
which  it  expressed  were,  it  is  true,  modified  in  many 
respects  in  the  author's  later  works,  and  not  without 
cause.  In  vol.  i.  De  Wette  certainly  deals  too 
M  rigorously  and  vigorously "  (as  Matthew  Arnold 
would  say)  with  the  Books  of  Chronicles ;  in  vol.  ii. 
he  under-estimates  the  historical  element  in  the 
narratives  of  the  Pentateuch.  His  views  on  the 
composition  of  the  Pentateuch  are  also  of  a  highly 
provisional  character ;  he  hovers  between  the  Frag- 
ment- and  the  Document-hypothesis,  and  though  he 

1  This  tractate  is  reprinted  in  De  Wette's  Opuscula  (Berlin, 
1833). 


DE   WETTE,  33 

is    evidently    not    hopeless    of   reconciling    them,    he 
cannot  formulate  a  distinct  theory  of  his  own.     Still 
the  work  is  full  of  promise,  and  the  youthful  author 
deserves  high  credit  for  the  large  element  of  truth  in 
all  his  theories.     As  Wellhausen  remarks,  he  was  the 
first   who   clearly   felt  the  inconsistency  between  the 
supposed  starting-point  of  Israelitish  history  and  that 
history  itself.     And   if  in   his  present  stage  he  is  too 
severe  both  on  Chronicles  and  on  the  Pentateuch,  his 
predecessor  Eichhorn  was  undeniably  too  lenient,  and 
the    particular    critical    hypothesis    (known    as   the 
Supplement-theory)    for   which    De    Wctte  prepared 
the  way,  formed  a  necessary  stage  in  the  progress  of 
Pentateuch-criticism.     Against  these  merits  .must  we 
set  the  demerit  of  undevoutness  ?     Let  that  harshest 
of  contemporary   critics,  Lagarde,  answer.       "  I    re- 
member," he  says,  "  how  De  Wette's  Beitrdge,  against 
which  Hengstenberg  warned  [every  one],  worked  upon 
me.      [I    found    in    the   author]    a   truthfulness    and 
honesty  beyond  reproach,  with  but  few  results  except 
that  great    one  produced    sooner   or   later   upon    all 
candid  minds  by  him  who  walks  before  God."  * 

Let  us  pause  a  moment  here.  If  it  be  true  (with 
qualifications)  that  every  earnest  thinker  passes 
through  three  stages — a  stage  of  seeking,  a  stage  of 
finding,  and  a  stage  of  applying  the  truth  found  to 
practical  life — in  which  of  these  stages  is  De  Wette  ? 
I  think  that  he  has  already  entered  on  the  second. 

1  Mittheilungen^  iv.  (1891),  p  58. 


34      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

He  has  not  indeed  reached  mature  and  definite  critical 
views,  but  he  is  in  advance  of  older  workers  in  the 
same  field,  while  theologically  he  has  begun  to  scale 
the  height,  from  which  he  hopes  to  look  down  on  the 
lower  hills  of  rationalism  and  orthodoxy.  It  may  be 
true  (see  Griesbach's  preface  to  Beitrage,  vol.  i.)  that 
he  is  at  present  impeded  in  his  studies  by  poverty. 
But  his  first  publication  will  soon  alter  this  :  the  com- 
pleted Beitrcige  will  be  his  passport  to  a  professorship. 
In  fact,  the  university  of  Heidelberg  borrowed  rather 
largely  at  this  time  from  Jena.  Three  eminent 
members,  past  or  present,  of  the  teaching  body  of 
Jena  were  appointed  to  chairs  at  Heidelberg — Fries 
the  philosopher  in  1805,  De  Wette  in  1807,  and 
Paulus  in  181 1.  The  two  friends,  Fries  and  De  Wette, 
were  thus  reunited,  much  to  the  advantage  of  the 
latter.  A  beautiful  relation  sprung  up  between  them 
of  which  we  have  a  fine  monument  in  the  dedication 
of  De  Wette's  first  book  on  Christian  Ethics.  De 
Wette  had  also  at  this  time  a  growing  consciousness 
that  a  Biblical  critic  should  work,  not  merely  for 
criticism's  sake,  but  for  the  good  of  the  Church.  He 
saw  therefore  that  he  must  not  altogether  neglect 
either  historic  or  theoretic  theology.  The  fruits  of 
this  expanded  view  of  duty  were  not  however  at 
once  apparent  outside  his  lecture-room.  His  next 
work  was  an  attempt  to  make  the  results  of  linguistic 
Bible-study  accessible  to  the  Church  at  large.  It  was 
a  new  translation  of  the  Old  Testament,  undertaken 
by  De  Wette  and  J.  C.  W.  Augusti   together.     This 


DE   WETTE.  35 

work  appeared  in  1809,  and  was  completed  by  a 
similar  version  of  the  New  Testament  in  1814  (by  Dc 
Wette  alone).1  All  honour  to  Dc  Wcttc  for  the 
combination  of  frankness  and  considerateness  which 
this  noble  work  displays ! 

In  1 8 10  a  great  event  occurred,  which  had  important 
consequences  for  De  Wette — the  foundation  of  the 
university  of  Berlin.  Schleiermachcr  was  the  first 
theological  professor  appointed,  and  through  his 
influence  De  Wette  and  the  speculative  theologian 
Marheincke  were  called  to  Berlin  from  Heidelberg  ; 
Neander  (put  forward  by  Marheineke)  came  from 
the  same  university  later  (18 13).  Here  De  Wette 
passed  eight  years  full  of  delightful  academical  and 
literary  work.2  With  a  character  deepened  by  the 
trials  through  which  Germany  had  been  called  to 
pass,  and  a  mind  susceptible  to  all  progressive  ideas, 
he  took  his  place  among  some  of  the  noblest  of 
scholars,  and  contributed  to  the  success  of  that  great 
creation  of  Stein  and  Humboldt — the  Berlin  university. 
It  is  during  this  period  of  his  life  that  the  third  stage 
in  De  Wette's  development  becomes  fully  revealed. 
No  one  can  any  longer  mistake  the  positiveness  of 
his  theology,  and  the  practical  character  of  his  aims. 
Not  that  criticism  is  abandoned — far  from  it ;  but  it 

1  In  the  second  edition  of  this  version  of  the  Bible  ( 1  S3 1)  the 
books  originally  rendered  by  Augusti  were  retranslated  by  De 
Wette.     The  third  edition  appeared  in  183S. 

2  A  valuable  record  of  this  period  exists  in  Liicke's  memorial 
sketch  of  De  Wette,  Theol.  Studicn  mid  Kritikcn,  1850,  Heft  3, 
p.  497,  &C 


36       FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

becomes  more  distinctly  subordinate   to   the  higher 
end  of  promoting  the  religious  life  of  the  Church.     In 
1813  De  Wette  published  the  first  part  of  his  Christian 
Dogmatics^  dealing  with  the  Biblical  division  1  (part  ii. 
on  Protestant  theology,  appeared  in  18 16)  ;  in  1815  a 
smaller    supplementary    treatise,    On    Religion    and 
Theology ;    in    18 19,    his    justly    admired     Christian 
Ethics  (part  iii.,  1823),  with  the  charming  dedication 
to  which  I  referred  above.     The  last  of  these  works 
does  not  concern  us  here,  but  the  two  former,  in  so 
far   as    they   deal   with   the    question    of    "  Biblical 
myths,"  cannot   be  passed    over.2     Several   of  those 
who  were   students  at  that   time  have  recorded  the 
powerful    impression   which    they   produced.      "  De 
Wette,"  says  one,  "  in  his  little  work  on  Religion  and 
Theology^  a   work   breathing   a   youthful   inspiration, 
placed    before  us  a  new  theological   structure  corre- 
sponding to  our  wishes,"  i.  e.  a  system  which  provided 
a  via  media  between  a  repellent  rationalism  and  a  not 
very   attractive    orthodoxy.      "  Indeed,"    this    writer 
adds,  "  we  now  believed  that  we  had  won  back,  in  an 
ennobled    form,  that  which  had  been  torn  from  us, 
and  only  at  a  later  period  discovered   the  delusion 
(?  illusion)  by  which  we   had    been   misled."  3     Such 

1  The  full  title  of  Part  I.  is,  Biblische  Dogmatik  des  A.  und 
N.  T.;  oder  kritische  Darstelhmg  der  Religionslehre  des  Hebra- 
t'smus,  des  Judenthums,  und  des  Urchristenthums. 

2  For  a  sketch  of  the  theory  of  religion  contained  in  them,  see 
Pfleiderer,  Development  of  Theology,  pp.  99 — 102. 

3  Krummacher,  Autobiography  (1869),  p.  59;  comp.  Liicke, 
Theol.   Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1850,  p.  502,  who  however  only  gave  up 


DE    WT.TTE.  37 

is  the  honest  verdict  of  a  practical  theologian,  who  had 
neither  time  nor  ability  to  rectify  the  defects  in  De 
Wctte's  system,  and  who,  finding  it  faulty,  pronounced 
it  an  illusion,  but  would  not  deny  the  pleased  surprise 
with  which  he  had  at  first  greeted  it.  Into  the  causes 
of  De  Wctte's  partial  failure,  this  is  not  the  place  to 
enter.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  in  some  of  his  root- 
ideas  he  appears  to  have  been  before  his  time.  Arch- 
bishop Benson  has  lately  admitted  the  possibility 
that  the  Divine  Spirit  may  have  made  use  of  "  myths," 
and  the  influence  of  Ritschl  and  Lipsius  proves  that 
an  unmetaphysical  but  not  irrational  theology  is 
becoming  more  and  more  attractive  in  the  land  of 
Luther.  As  to  the  value  of  De  Wette's  third  work, 
the  Biblical  Dogmatics,  no  doubt  happily  can  exist. 
It  not  only  forms,  historically,  a  much-needed  anti- 
thesis to  the  "  naturalism "  of  Gramberg  and  his 
school,  but,  though  somewhat  painfully  thin,  presents 
many  permanent  results  of  criticism  in  a  lucid  form. 
The  second  edition  is  graced  by  a  charming  and 
memorable  dedication  to  Schleiermachcr. 

I  remarked  just  now  that  criticism  was  not  wholly 
abandoned  by  De  Wette  at  this  period.  Two  remark- 
able works  are  the  proof  of  this — his  Commentary  o)i  the 
Psalms  (i 8 1 1)  and  his  Historico- Critical  Introduction 
to  the  Canonical  and  Apocryphal  Books  of  the  Old 
Testament  (1817).1     The  former  work,  disappointing 

De  Wette's  theology  because  Schleiermacher's  suited  him  better, 
not  because  it  was  too  radical. 

1  Six   editions  of  the  Introduction  appeared  in  the  author's 


38       FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

as  it  is  when  judged  by  our  present  critical  and 
linguistic  standard,  marks  a  turning-point  in  the  exe- 
gesis of  the  Psalms.  "  He  was  the  first,"  as  Delitzsch 
observes,  "to  clear  away  the  rubbish  under  which 
exposition  had  been  buried,  and  to  introduce  into 
it  taste,  after  the  example  of  Herder,  and  gram- 
matical accuracy,  under  the  influence  of  Gesenius." 
He  does  not  however  do  justice  to  the  religious  origin 
and  theological  ideas  of  the  Psalms,  which  he  treats 
as  merely  so  many  national  hymns.  In  his  views  of 
the  dates  of  the  Psalms,  he  represents  a  necessary 
reaction  against  the  extravagant  or  at  least  prema- 
ture positiveness  of  Rudinger  and  Venema.  He 
declines  altogether  to  dogmatize  on  the  occasions 
when  the  Psalms  were  composed,  but  speaks  with 
no  uncertain  sound  of  the  historical  worthlessness  of 
the  so-called  tradition.  On  this  point  his  subsequent 
course  is  already  foreshadowed  in  his  Beitrage,  where 
he  frankly  declares  (i.  158)  that  "David  is  as  much  a 
collective  name  as  Moses,  Solomon,  Isaiah."  He  also 
gives  valuable  hints  on  the  marks  of  originality  and 
imitation  in  the  Psalms,  but  when  he  does  venture  on 
a  positive  opinion  as  to  dates,  he  is  not  always  equally 
critical  ;  for  instance,  he  thinks  that  Ps.  xlv.  is  a  post- 
Exilic  work,  and  that  it  is  "  most  appropriately  referred 
to  a  non-Jewish    king."1     This    is    in  part   certainly 

lifetime.  The  seventh  (1852)  was  edited  by  Stahelin  ;  for  the 
eighth  (1869),  tne  work  was  revised  and  partly  recast  by  Prof. 
Schrader,  then  of  Zurich.  I  may  also  mention  De  Wette's 
handbook  to  Hebrew  Archaeology  (18 14). 

1  De  Wette  rejects  the  Messianic  interpretation  as  "  incon- 


DE  w  kti  i  .  39 

correct,  in  part  a  plausible  opinion.  But  the  same 
De  Wette  actually  thinks  it  possible  that  Ps.  exxxii. 
may  be  the  work  of  Solomon,  which  Hitzig  severely 
but  not  unjustly  describes  as  a  "critical  curiosity." 
Long  afterwards,  De  Wette  sought  to  make  good  one 
of  the  chief  defects  of  his  book  by  a  short  tractate 
On  the  Practical  (erbaulicli)  Explanation  of  the  Psalms 
(1836).  The  booklet  is,  naturally  enough,  in  some 
respects  meagre  ;  how  indeed  could  a  practical  ex- 
planation of  this  monument  of  the  Jewish  Church  be 
produced  for  the  educated  class  without  a  much 
deeper  insight  into  Biblical  theology  than  even  in 
1836  the  author  possessed?  But  on  the  subject  of 
inspiration  it  contains  hints  which  well  deserve  to  be 
pondered  by  English  students  (see  especially  p.  12). 

One  of  De  Wette's  most  striking  faculties — that  of 
condensation  and  lucid  exposition — is  specially  notice- 
able in  his  second  critical  work  of  this  period.  What 
a  pronounced  opponent  thought  of  the  Introduction  to 
the  Old  Testament,  may  be  seen  from  these  words  of 
Heil  on  the  posthumous  Introduction  of  Bleek.1 

"  As  our  final  judgment,  we  can  only  state  that 
Bleek's  independent  conclusions  have  long  since  been 
published  by  himself  in  separate  dissertations,  while 
the  remainder  does  but  reproduce  the  well-known 
results  of  rationalistic  criticism,  which    are    put    to- 

sistent  with  the  Hebrew  Christology."    He  is  favourably  inclined 
towards  a  conjecture  of  his  friend  Augusti,  that  the  author  of 
Ps.  xlv.  is  Mordecai. 
1  Quoted  by  the  editors  of  Bleek's  Einleitung,  [>.  21, 


40      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

gether  and  developed  in  a  much  more  acute,  clever, 
thorough,  tasteful,  and  complete  manner  in  the  Intro- 
duction of  De  Wette." 

I  will  not  here  question  this  "  final  judgment"  on 
Bleek,  but  merely  call  attention  to  the  earnest  study 
of  De  Wette  which  the  words  of  the  old  apologist 
imply,  and  the  respect  with  which  this  study  has  in- 
spired him.  Other  voices,  less  friendly  in  tone,  have 
also  been  heard  ;  the  charge  of  instability  has  been 
freely  brought  against  De  Wette,  on  the  ground  of  the 
variations  of  view  in  the  successive  editions  of  both 
his  Introductions.  Is  the  accusation  justified  ?  It  is 
an  interesting  question,  because,  should  criticism  some 
day  be  more  largely  represented  in  England,  the  same 
charge  will  doubtless  be  confidently  brought  against 
eminent  English  theologians.  And  one  may  reply 
that  it  is  only  justified,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  De 
Wette  never  reached  firm,  definite,  and  consistent 
critical  principles.  Change  of  opinion  on  problems 
which  from  the  nature  of  the  evidence  cannot  with 
complete  certainty  be  decided,  can  be  no  fault,  and 
if  due  to  honest,  hard  work  is  a  subject  for  praise 
rather  than  blame.  Constant  development  is  the 
note  of  a  great  and  not  of  a  small  character ;  and  he 
is  a  poor  critic  who  does  not  criticize  himself  with 
even  more  keenness  than  he  criticizes  tradition.  In 
his  willingness  to  reconsider  disputable  points  De 
Wette  sets  an  example  not  unworthy  of  imitation. 
As  one  who  knew  him  says,  "  he  was  free  from  all 
magisterial    obstinacy  and   vanity,  and   it    cost  him 


DE   WETTE.  41 

nothing  to  give  up  even  favourite  opinions,  when  the 
truth  was  placed  before  him,  and  to  accept  without 
hesitation  even  from  his  junior  that  which  he  re- 
cognized to  be  better  and  more  correct."  1  Into  the 
details  of  De  Wette's  changes  as  an  Old  Testament 
critic,  I  cannot  here  enter.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  in 
the  early  editions  of  his  Introduction  his  attitude  was 
predominantly  negative.  However  strongly  he  felt 
the  difficulties  of  the  traditional  views,  he  could  not 
readily  accept  the  constructive  criticism  of  bolder 
scholars.  Whether  he  ever  attained  to  a  sufficiently 
positive  standpoint  of  his  own,  whether  in  fact  he 
ever  gained  a  large  and  consistent  critical  theory,  is 
a  delicate  question,  upon  which  I  may  venture  to 
offer  an  opinion  at  the  close  of  this  sketch. 

We  have  seen  that  De  Wette  began  his  career  as  a 
somewhat  too  pronounced  negative  critic,  and  that 
even  when  he  had  reconquered  more  than  his  old 
devoutness,  he  did  not  lay  aside  the  sword  of  criticism. 
"Only  the  perfect  in  its  kind  is  good,"  he  said  ;  "there- 
fore let  us  venture  into  unknown  fields,  trusting  to 
the  Guardian  of  the  Church  to  overrule  all  things  for 
the  best."'2  He  had  found  a  subjective  reconciliation 
of  reason  and  faith,  and  by  his  philosophy  of  religion 
and  his  symbolic  view  of  Biblical  narratives  he  sought 
to  provide  a  similar  reconciliation  for  others.      This 

1  Liicke,  "Zur  Erinnerung  an  Dc  Wette,''  Thcol.  Stud.  u. 
Kritn  1850,  p.  507. 

2  A  paraphrase   of  the  last  two  sentences  of  the  Beiii 
(Bd.  ii.). 


42       FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

however  was  a  thing  hitherto  unknown  among  theo- 
logical paradoxes.     Devout  philosophy  was  rare  ;  but 
devout  criticism   like  De  Wette's  was    unique.     His 
philosophic   theology  and   his   symbolizing  criticism 
were   alike  uncanny  to  certain  devout    but    narrow- 
minded    "  pietists "  at  Berlin.      And  when  to  these 
two    dangerous    peculiarities    was    added    a    political 
liberalism,   not    less    intense    indeed    than    that    of 
Schleiermacher,  but  less  under  the  control  of  prudence, 
it  will  be  clear  that  De  Wette's  path  was  not  likely 
to  be  strewn  with  roses,  for  the  pietists  and  the  ultra- 
conservative  politicians  were  allies.     De  Wette's  chief 
comfort  was    in  the    new   friendships    which   opened 
themselves  to  him  at  Berlin.     Younger  men  found  an 
attraction  in  his  freedom  from  donnishness  and  youth- 
ful readiness  to  hear  others,  and  preferred,  if  not  his 
theories  themselves,  yet  his  lucid  and  intelligible  way 
of  expressing  them,  to  the  dark  Heraclitean  manner 
of  his  colleague  Schleiermacher.     It  was  one  of  these 
juniors  (Liicke)  who  brought  De  Wette  into  closer 
contact  with  the  latter,  by  inducing  him  to  attend 
the  church  where  Schleiermacher  ministered;1  as  soon 
as  De  Wette  discovered  the  deep  religious  basis  of 
that  great  teacher,  he  gave  himself  up  without  reserve 
to   one   who    was    only  too    glad    of  his    friendship. 

1  For  specimens  of  his  sermons,  see  Selected  Sermons  of 
ScJdeiermacher*  by  Mary  F.  Wilson  (Hodder  and  Stoughton). 
Of  course,  the  brief  biographical  sketch  prefixed  is  only  meant 
to  excite  an  appetite  for  fuller  knowledge.  Lagarde's  contempt 
for  the  piety  of  Schleiermacher  {Mittheilungcn,  iv.  5,  8,  &c.)  is 
surely  not  justified  by  the  facts  of  his  life  and  writings. 


DE   WETTE.  45 

Different  as  the  two  men  were,  they  had  one  thing 
in  common — a  complexity  of  character  which  brought 
them  for  a  time  into  some  obloquy.  In  De  Wettc 
the  keen  literary  and  historical  critic  existed  side  by 
side  with  the  devout  religious  thinker  ;  in  Schleier- 
macher  the  analyst  and  dialectician  made  terms  with 
the  Christian  and  the  constructive  thinker.1  The  tree 
of  friendship  grew,  and  no  storms  of  time  could  over- 
throw it.  They  had  indeed  one  serious  dissension  ; 
Schleiermacher  favoured  the  appointment  of  Hegel 
in  1S16  ;  De  Wettc  (who  wished  to  bring  Fries  from 
Jena)  belonged  to  a  minority  of  professors  who 
opposed  it.  But  this  was  soon  forgotten,  and  when 
in  1817  the  position  of  De  Wette  seemed  to  be  be- 
coming precarious,  Schleiermacher  (himself  not  free 
from  suspicion)  prefixed  to  one  of  his  books2  a 
dedication  to  De  Wette  which  for  generosity  and 
for  courageous  speaking  of  the  truth  is  unsurpassable 
in  theological  literature. 

Two  years  later,  the  storm  which  had  long  been 
gathering  discharged  itself  upon  De  Wette  under 
circumstances  which  no  one  could  have  anticipated. 
In  18 1 7  the  prolific  dramatist  Kotzebue  had  been 
appointed  a  Russian  State-councillor,  with  a  salary 
of  1 5,000  roubles,  and  been  "sent  to  reside  in  Germany, 
to  report  upon  literature  and  public  opinion."    Natur- 

1  See  a  remarkable  description  of  the  latter  reconciled  anti- 
thesis in  Bluntschli,  Denkwiirdigkeiten    Bd.  i.  . 

-  It  is  the  Critical  Essay  on  the  Writings  of  Luk\\  translated 
by  (Bishop]  Connop  Thirhvall. 


44      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

ally  enough,  he  incurred  the  displeasure  of  the 
Liberals,  and  especially  of  the  young  Liberal  students, 
who  were  then  counted  by  hundreds  in  Germany. 
One  of  these,  named  Sand,  conceiving  Kotzebue  to 
be  dangerous  to  freedom,  murdered  him,  March  28, 
1 8 19.  The  event  produced  a  sensation  throughout 
Germany,  and  the  cry  arose  among  the  reactionary 
party,  "The  professors  and  the  students  are  Kotzebue's 
murderers."  Among  the  most  obnoxious  Liberal  pro- 
fessors were  Arndt,  Welcker,  Schleiermacher,  and  De 
Wette.1  It  is  almost  incredible,  considering  the  known 
activity  of  the  secret  police,  that  one  of  these  professors 
actually  wrote  a  letter  to  Sand's  mother,  expressing 
not  only  condolence  but  appreciation  of  the  patriotic 
spirit  in  which  the  blameworthy  act  had  been  per- 
formed. "  Only  according  to  his  faith  is  each  man 
judged.  Committed  as  this  deed  has  been  by  a  pure- 
minded,  pious  youth,  it  is  a  beautiful  sign  of  the  time," 
and,  though  not  concealing  his  own  abhorrence  of  as- 
sassination, De  Wette  referred  in  the  postscript  to  Jean 
Paul's  idealistic  judgment  on  Charlotte  Corday.2  No 
one  knew  how  this  letter  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  police, 
but  it  was  suspected  that  Baron  von  Kottwitz,  the 
leader  of  the  Berlin  pietists,  was  foremost  in  urging 
the  Prussian  King  (Frederick  William  III.)  to  take 
strong  measures  against  the  writer.  Strange  paradox  ! 
A  scoffer,  who  described  Christianity  brought  to  old 
Prussia  as  "  a  poisonous  flower  planted  in  the  midst 

1  See  Life  and  Adventures  of  Arndt  (1879),  p.  376. 

2  Frank,  art.  "de  Wette,"  in  Herzog-Plitt,  EncycL,  Bd.  xvii. 


DE   WETTE.  45 

of  the  dry  and  dead  cross,"1  becomes  in  death  the 
protege  of  devout  ascetics,  and  the  hireling  of  a  foreign 

power  dictates  the  expulsion  of  one  of  Germany's  best 
patriots.  A  large  part  of  the  university  keenly  felt 
the  irony  of  the  circumstances.  The  faculty  of  theo- 
logy, led  by  Schleicrmachcr,  did  all  in  its  power  to 
save  one  of  its  ablest  members,  and  when  De  Wette's 
fate  was  irrevocably  decided,  the  students  presented 
him  with  a  silver  cup,  bearing  as  an  inscription  the 
closing  words  of  the  great  Reformation  hymn — 

Nehmen  sie  den  Leib, 
Gut,  Ehr',  Kind  und  Weib  : 
Lass  fahren  dahin, 
Sie  haben  's  kein  Gewinn  ; 

Das  Reich  muss  uns  doch  bleiben. 

So  De  Wettc  sadly  but  proudly  left  his  home,  re- 
gretted by  all  who  knew  him,  especially  by  Schleier- 
macher.  From  the  Latin  biography  of  Ilgen  I  learn 
that  the  chair  which  he  thus  vacated  was  offered  to, 
but  not  accepted  by,  that  acute  critic  of  Genesis. 

De  Wette  retired  to  his  native  Weimar,  nor  can  one 
help  admiring  the  moral  courage  with  which  he  bore 
his  misfortune.  To  say,  with  an  American  biography, 
that  he  permanently  suffered  under  a  sense  of  in- 
justice, shows  a  want  of  psychological  insight.  His 
enemies  did  but  act  according  to  their  nature  ;  how 
then  should  he  accuse  them  of  injustice  ?  That  he 
felt  the  consequences  of  their  act,  need  not  be  denied. 
But  at  first  he  did  not  even  feel  them  as  much  as  one 

1  Quoted  in  art.  "  Grundtvig,"  Herzog-Plitt,  v.  462. 


46      FOUNDERS   OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

might  expect.  It  seemed  to  him  as  if  God  had  called 
him  to  another  important  sphere  of  work,  from  which 
as  a  theologian  he  could  not  but  derive  profit — that 
of  preaching  the  Gospel.  And  while  waiting  for  a 
summons  from  the  congregation  he  took  up  his  pen 
to  show  that  his  old  doubts  had  but  issued  in  a  firmer 
Christian  character.  In  1822  he  published  a  "story 
with  a  purpose,"  called  Theodore,  or  the  Consecration 
of  the  Doubter,  which,  good  in  itself,  had  the  additional 
merit  of  calling  forth  Tholuck's  equally  autobio- 
graphical story,  The  True  Consecration  of  the  Doubter.1 
And  as  a  fresh  proof  of  his  attachment  to  the  principles 
of  the  Reformation,  De  Wette  prepared  a  critical 
edition  of  the  letters  and  other  papers  of  Luther, 
which  however  only  appeared  in  1825 — 1828  (5  vols.). 
Once  during  this  waiting  period  he  had  the  pleasure 
of  meeting  his  old  friends  Schleiermacher  and  Liicke 
at  Nordhausen.  Liicke  has  described  to  us  the  scene. 
Friends  were  coming  together  in  Schleiermacher's 
room  for  breakfast.  The  host  sat  by  himself  correct- 
ing the  proofs  of  the  notes  (most  remarkable  notes) 
to  the  new  edition  of  his  Reden  ilber  die  Religion.  The 
others  listened  to  De  Wette,  as  he  fervently  declaimed 
on  the  beauty  of  the  preacher's  office,  and  his  own 

1  The  full  title  is,  Die  Leh?'e  von  der  Siinde  imd  dem  Ver- 
sb'/mer,  oder  die  ivahre  Weihe  des  Zweiflers  (1823).  Both  stories 
had  their  mission  to  fulfil  for  that  period.  They  reflected  the 
different  experiences  of  their  respective  writers,  and  therefore 
appealed  to  somewhat  different  audiences.  De  Wette  was  the 
deeper  thinker,  but  Tholuck  had  passed  a  more  violent  spiritual 
crisis,  and  consequently  had  a  more  Pauline  fervour. 


DE  WETTE.  47 

joyful  hope  of  studying  theology  under  a  new  aspect 
as  a  minister  of  the  Word. 

This  hope  was  soon  to  be  dashed  to  the  ground,  at 
least  in  the  form  in  which  Dc  Wette  had  cherished  it. 
He  was  elected  shortly  afterwards   to  the   principal 
pastorate  in   Brunswick,  but  the  reactionary  govern- 
ment of  our  George  IV.,  professedly  on  moral  grounds, 
refused  its  sanction.     Once  more  De  Wette  became  a 
martyr   of    liberalism,    but    this    time    a    free    Swiss 
canton   intervened   in  his  favour.     In  spite  of  strong 
opposition   both    within   and  without    the  university, 
he  was  elected    by  the  town  council  of  Basel  (who 
obtained    the    most    authoritative    opinions    on    the 
purity  of   his  faith)  to  a   professorship  of   theology. 
So,  like  many  a  scholar  in  the  olden  time,  De  Wette, 
for  the  sake  of  his  life's  work,  passed  into  honourable 
exile.     He  became  a  true  citizen  of  the  noble  little 
city  of  Basel,  and  an  unwearied  promoter  of  all  its 
best  interests,  especially  academical  and  ecclesiastical. 
Through   him,    the    theological    instruction    was    re- 
organized on    the    German    model,  and    after    many 
years  a  religious  service  with  sermon  was  set  up  for 
the  university.     If  Basel  was  but  a  narrow  sphere  of 
action    compared  with   Berlin,  Dc  Wette's  influence 
there  was  doubtless  all  the  more  intensely  felt.     And 
the  democratic  constitution  of   Switzerland  gave  so 
much  theological  and  anti-theological  liberty,  that  an 
accomplished    and    circumspect    theologian    like    De 
Wette  was  perhaps   more  urgently  wanted  at  Basel 
than  at  the  headquarters  of  thought. 


48      FOUNDERS   OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

And  what  is  the  effect  of  this  involuntary  migration 
on  De  Wette  ?  Does  he  cease  henceforth  to  rank 
among  the  "  founders  of  criticism,"  and  pass  over,  if 
not  to  the  apologists,  yet  to  the  party  whose  motto 
is,  "  Quieta  non  movere  "  ?  Does  he  become  hence- 
forth virtually  "orthodox  "  ?  It  is  a  common  opinion, 
but  it  is  one  which  needs  some  rectification.  It  is 
certainly  true  that  De  Wette  took  alarm  at  many 
expressions  of  the  newer  rationalism  ;  true,  that  he 
attached  more  and  more  weight  to  many  of  the 
church-formulae  ;  true  especially,  that  he  took  every 
opportunity  of  practical  co-operation  with  the  or- 
thodox, and  even  with  the  "  pietists,"  for  whose  heart- 
Christianity  and  good  works  he  entertained  a  sincere 
respect.  But  it  is  also  true,  as  one  of  his  Swiss- 
German  colleagues  has  said,  that  he  only  advocated 
old-Lutheran  orthodoxy  "  conditionally  and  from  the 
stand-point  of  his  philosophical  mode  of  thinking"  ; 1 
true,  that  while  disapproving  of  Strauss  the  theo- 
logian, he  assimilated  much  from  Strauss  the  critic 
(who  indeed  had  previously  assimilated  somewhat 
from  him)  ;  true,  that  while  rejecting  Vatke's  recon- 
struction of  Israelitish  history  as  a  whole,  he  admitted 
that  there  was  an  element  of  truth  in  many  of  his 
views.  Again,  though  it  is  true  that  De  Wette 
(unlike  Delitzsch)  was  opposed  to  the  emancipation 
of  the  Jews,  and  would  have  had  both  mixed 
marriages  and  changes  of  religion  made  civil  offences, 

1  Hagenbach,  German  Rationalism,  E.  T.,  p.  358. 


DE    WKT'I  1  .  4<J 

it  is  also  true  that  in  his  most  conservative  pamphlet 
these  striking  words  occur:  "  I  hive  laboured  with  all 
my  might  for  spiritual  freedom,  and  to  this  freedom 
my  last  breath  shall  be  devoted."  It  must  never  be 
forgotten  that  as  a  critic  De  Wctte  remained  funda- 
mentally true  to  himself,  and  that  even  in  those  old, 
free  days  at  Jena  he  expressed  strong  attachment  to 
the  Augsburg  Confession.  I  must  confess  however 
that  De  Wette's  later  concessions  to  ecclesiastical 
conservatism  appear  to  me  to  come  perilously  near  to 
a  compromise  of  liberal  principles. 

Among  De  Wette's  literary  works  of  this  period 
are  those  lucid  text-books,  the  Introduction  to  tJic 
New  Testament  (1826),  and  the  Compendious  Exegeti- 
cal  Handbook  to  the  New  Testament  (1836 — 1848)  ; 
also  five  volumes  of  sermons  (1825 — 1849),  a  second 
didactic  story  (Heinrich  Melc/itual,  1829),  and  several 
treatises  on  Christian  ethics,  and  on  dogmatic  and 
practical  theology  (besides  new  editions  of  older 
works).  From  one  of  his  dogmatic  works  (published 
in  1S46)  it  is  clear  that  his  attachment  to  the 
philosophy  of  Fries  grew  much  weaker  in  his  later 
years,  but  that  he  had  no  longer  the  energy  to 
produce  a  reasoned  justification  for  his  "aesthetic" 
interpretation  of  dogmas.  Altogether,  one  is  led  to 
regret  that  he  gave  so  much  time  to  subjects  for  which 
he  had  not  nearly  as  much  ability  as  Schlciermachcr. 
Criticism  was  his  strong  point,  and  he  would  have 
done  well  to  concentrate  himself  more  upon  this. 
For    I    must,    however    unwillingly,    admit    that    De 


50      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD    TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Wette  as  a  critic  never  quite  realized  the  promise 
of  his  early  years.  Extensive  and  useful  as  his 
critical  work  is,  we  cannot  say  that  it  is  worthy  of 
"the  epoch-making  opener  of  the  historical  criticism 
of  the  Pentateuch  "  (Wellhausen)  ;  in  definite  literary 
and  historical  results  it  is  comparatively  poor.  And 
this  remark  applies  to  all  De  Wette's  critical  writings, 
alike  on  the  Old  Testament  and  on  the  New.1  In 
both  departments  of  study  he  begins  with  scepticism 
and  negativism,  and  as  a  rule  fails  to  attain  to  positive 
conclusions,  much  less  to  an  assured  historical  syn- 
thesis. And  the  reason  is  that  he  has  a  theory  of 
criticism  which,  though  not  unsound,  is  incomplete. 
He  has  but  a  scanty  insight  into  the  movement  of 
ideas,  and  does  not  take  sufficient  pains  to  ascertain 
the  historic  background  of  literary  phenomena.  Lack- 
ing this  insight,  he  could  arrive  at  different  critical 
conclusions,  not  merely  on  minor  but  on  fundamental 
points,  at  different  periods,  though  it  is  also  possible 
that  in  his  later  years  he  was  unconsciously  biassed 
by  his  practical  conservatism  as  a  churchman.  From 
the  same  deficiency  he  was  unable  to  do  full  justice  to 
specimens  of  historical  synthesis  like  Ewald's  History 
of  the  People  of  Israel  and  Vatke's  Biblical  Theology. 
It  is  obviously  not  enough  to  say  of  the  former  that 
it  throws  fresh  light  on  many  points  in  the  historical 
books,  and  elaborate  and  respectful   as  De  Wette's 

1  Cf.  Bleek's  judgment  on  De  Wette  as  a  New  Testament 
critic,  Introd.  to  the  New  Testament,  E.  T.,  i.  29,  with  that  of 
Baur,  Gesch.  der  christl.  Kirche,  v.  418,  419. 


DE   WETTE.  5  T 

review  of  the  latter  may  be,1  it  leads  up  to  a  re- 
jection of  that  able  book  on  the  simple  ground  that 
it  is  revolutionary — "  its  criticism  has  overthrown 
nearly  all  bounds,"  are  the  closing  words.  From  this 
later  utterance  we  turn  with  a  sigh  to  De  Wctte's 
own  early  experiments  in  revolutionary  criticism — 
the  two  little  volumes  of  Beitrage. 

Would  the  result  of  De  Wctte's  work  have  been 
less  disappointing,  had  he  remained  at  such  a  centre 
of  intellectual  life  as  Berlin  ?  It  is  not  impossible. 
There  perhaps  he  might  have  had  courage  to  antici- 
pate the  conclusions  of  Vatke  from  the  point  of  view 
(introduced  by  himself  in  the  Beitrage)  of  a  realistic 
and  historical  criticism  of  the  contents  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch.  Perhaps  too  he  might  have  so  far  overcome  his 
antipathy  to  Hegel  as  to  absorb  something  from  that 
philosopher's  luminous  philosophy  of  history.  Certain 
it  is,  that  there  was  much  to  depress  De  Wette  in  his 
circumstances  at  Basel.  Baron  Bunsen,  attending  the 
Mission  Festival  in  1840,  brings  back  a  very  melan- 
choly report  of  his  state  of  mind.  I  will  only  quote 
his  opening  words — 

"  Professor  De  Wette  was  present,  closely  attending 
to  all  that  passed  :  his  appearance  is  shrunk  and 
withered,  with  deep  furrows  of  reflection  and  of 
sorrow  in  his  countenance,  and  the  expression  of 
high  and  spiritual  seriousness.  He  has  married  a 
widow-lady  of  Basel,  but  stands  alone  in  the  place."2 

1  Thcolog.  Studicn  und  Kritiken,  1S37,  Heft  3. 
-  Memoirs  0/  Bunsen,  i.  576. 


52      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

The  rest  of  Bunsen's  report  seems  derived  from  some 
pitying  but  misunderstanding  friend  of  De  Wette. 
The  great  teacher  may  have  been  annoyed  by  foolish 
misconceptions  of  his  character,  and  by  the  pre- 
valence of  "  pietism  "  among  his  own  students,  but  he 
was  not  without  true  friends,  such  as  his  colleague 
Hagenbach  (to  whose  defence  of  De  Wette  I  have 
referred),  and  his  gifted  pupil  Schenkel.  And 
against  Bunsen's  gloomy  sketch  we  can  set  this 
brighter  picture  by  a  much  closer  friend,  Friedrich 
Liicke,  in  which  the  reader  should  especially  note  De 
Wette's  magnanimous  return  for  Ewald's  rudeness 
(see  p.  91). 

"  I  saw  my  friend,"  he  says,  "  for  the  last  time  in 
the  autumn  of  1845  in  Basel,  still  enjoying  the 
cheerful  youthfulness  of  a  vegeta  senectus.  He  had 
just  finished  his  Representation  of  the  Nature  of 
Christian  Faith,  and  was  then  preparing  for  a 
journey  to  Italy,  with  fresh  and  lively  feelings.  I 
was  permitted  once  more  to  see  in  union  all  the 
beautiful  traits  of  his  amiable  and  lovely  disposition. 
I  especially  recollect  in  what  terms  of  recognition 
and  kindness  he  spoke  of  Ewald,  with  whose  Com- 
mentary on  Job  he  had  just  been  busied ;  in  his 
noble  love  of  truth  and  in  his  modesty  he  was  at 
no  time  led  astray  by  the  many  sharp  experiences 
which  he  had  of  being  misapprehended,  and  of  the 
hostility  of  others.  At  noon  and  in  the  afternoon  he 
mingled,  fresh  and  lively,  in  a  larger  circle  of  friends, 
in  good  humour  at  every  stroke  of  pleasantry,  full  of 


DE  WETTE.  53 

joy  in  the  beautiful  nature  and  in  all  the  intellectual 
life  of  conversation.  So  stands  he  now  before  my  soul 
in  earthly  serenity  and  at  the  same  time  in  heavenly 
brightness,  along  with  Schleiermacher.  I  thank  God 
that  He  has  given  me  the  blessing  of  having  intimately 
known  such  men  in  life."  l 

In  1848  De  Wette  brought  out  the  last  volume  of 
his  Exegetieal  Handbook  to  the  Neiv  Testament,  and 
so,  as  Baur  has  said,  worthily  "  closed  his  day's  work 
as  one  of  the  most  faithful  labourers  in  the  field  of 
theology."  He  passed  from  earth,  June  16,  1849, 
with  high  and  holy  words  on  his  lips.  What,  let  us 
ask,  is  the  great  lesson  of  his  life — what  was  his 
guiding  star  in  all  his  wanderings  ?  His  old  pupil 
Schenkel  has  told  us.  It  was  this — that  "  in  none  of 
the  relations  of  life,  least  of  all  in  theology  and  the 
Church,  can  truth  exist  without  freedom,  or  freedom 
without  truth."  De  Wette  himself  was,  in  the  words 
of  Neander,  a  "genuine  Nathaniel-soul," — "in  him 
was  no  guile "  ;  and  in  the  midst  of  comparative 
failure,  he  succeeded  in  this — in  presenting  probably 
the  best  model  of  a  keen  but  devout  critic  in  his 
generation. 

I  have  next  to  introduce  the  two  great  philological 
critics,  whose  names  are  still  household  words  among 
us,  Gesenius  and  Ewald.  The  former  is  the  older, 
and  indeed  represents  a  phase  of  religious  thought 
which   Ewald   from   the   first   almost  entirely  passed 

1  Condensed  from   the  late   B.  B.  Edwards'  translation  from 
Lucke  in  Bibliothcca  Sacra,  1850,  p.  794. 


54      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

beyond.  His  range  of  study  too  was  narrower, 
though  within  that  range  he  attained  more  undis- 
puted success.  It  may  be  added  that  the  idiosyn- 
crasies of  the  two  scholars  were  as  different  as  their 
scientific  careers,  and  that  they  are  worth  studying, 
not  only  as  critics,  but  as  men.  Wilhelm  Gesenius 
was  born  at  Nordhausen  in  the  Harz  district,  Feb.  3, 
1785.  He  received  his  first  academical  training  at  the 
now  extinct  university  of  Helmstedt  (in  the  duchy 
of  Brunswick),  and  it  was  from  the  distinguished 
Helmstedt  rationalist,  Heinrich  Henke,  that  he  im- 
bibed his  theology.  This  was  the  more  unfortunate, 
because  Gesenius's  nature  was  a  less  devout  one  than 
his  teacher's,  and  the  young  student  instinctively 
fastened  on  the  colder  and  more  negative  side  of 
rationalistic  thought.  Henke  himself  appears  to 
have  been  an  excellent  specimen  of  the  rationalism 
of  that  day.  There  was  a  manly  seriousness  in  his 
character,  and  the  devoutness  with  which  he  traced 
a  divine  inspiration  in  the  philosophy  and  poetry  of 
Greece  finds  an  echo  in  the  breast  of  our  own  best 
orthodox  thinkers.  But  Henke  had  little  or  no  sense  of 
the  growth  of  ideas,  and  of  the  way  in  which  thought 
is  conditioned  by  the  circumstances  of  an  age,  and  he 
applied  his  own  standard  of  common-sense  rational- 
ism to  all  Christian  periods  indifferently.  He  might 
indeed  have  learned  better  things  from  Lessing,  who 
was  still  at  Wolfenbiittel  when  Henke  began  his 
career  at  Helmstedt,  but  he  was  evidently  not  as 
open  as  Eichhorn  to  non-professional  influences,  and 


GESENIUS.  55 

Lessing  was  a  lay-theologian.    Such  was  the  teacher 

who  left  an  indelible  mark  on  the  future  leader  in 
Hebrew  philology.  He  also  made  one  other  impor- 
tant convert  among  the  students  of  Gesenius's  genera- 
tion. This  was  Wegscheidcr,  afterwards  a  colleague 
of  Gesenius  at  Halle,  whose  Institutions  T/ieoIogice 
Christiana  Dogmaticce  had  still  a  waning  popularity 
forty  years  ago.1 

From  Helmstedt  (which  lost  its  university  in  1810) 
Gesenius  passed  to  Gottingcn,  where  Eichhorn  and 
Tychsen  were  his  masters  in  Biblical  and  Oriental 
literature  ;  Ewald,  as  we  shall  find,  had  the  same 
instructors  later.  There  too  (like  so  many  other 
great  scholars),  he  began  his  public  career  as  a 
privatdocent  and  repctcnt ;  by  a  singular  fortune,  he 
had  Neander  as  his  first  pupil  in  Hebrew.  In  1S09 
he  exchanged  academical  for  scholastic  work,  but  in 
the  following  year  was  transferred  to  the  honourable 
position  of  a  theological  professor  at  Halle.  And  at 
this  great  seat  of  theological  study  he  was  content  to 
remain.  Twice  only  do  we  hear  of  the  possibility  of 
his  moving  elsewhere.  The  first  occasion  was  in 
1827,  when  the  chair  of  his  master  Eichhorn  became 
vacant  at  Gottingen  ;  the  second  in  1832,  when, 
according  to  Gesenius's  statement  to  Vatke,  Oxford 
would  have  gladly  given  him  a  position  with  an  in- 
come of  as  many  pounds  sterling  as  Halle  gave 
thalers.2      It  may  surprise  some  to  hear  of   Oxford 

1  The  eighth  edition  was  published  at  Leipzig  in  1844. 
-   Benecke.  Wilhehn  Vatke,  p.  83. 


56      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

offering  a  home  to  a  German  rationalist  on  the 
eve  of  the  Tractarian  movement,  nor  can  I  throw 
any  light  on  the  circumstances  referred  to.  It  is 
true  that  in  the  summer  of  1820  Gesenius  had  paid 
a  visit  to  Oxford  (and  to  Paris)  for  learned  purposes  ; 
but  what  permanent  office  at  the  university  was 
likely  to  be  offered  at  that  time  to  a  foreigner  ? 
And  perhaps  it  is  not  less  strange  that  the  cause  of 
Gesenius's  momentary  wish  to  go  to  Oxford  was 
a  sense  of  insecurity  at  Halle.  Such  however  was 
the  case.  Two  orthodox  theologians — Otto  von 
Gerlach  (called  the  Wesley  of  Berlin)  and  Ernst 
Wilhelm  Hengstenberg — had  in  a  too  famous  Church 
paper  (the  Evangelische  Kreuzzeitang)  published 
attacks  upon  Wegscheider  and  Gesenius  which  aimed 
at  nothing  less  than  a  dismissal  of  these  "  dangerous  " 
rationalists  from  their  office.  The  attacks,  as  Bunsen 
remarked  to  Niebuhr  at  the  time,1  "  were  written 
without  a  wrong  motive,  but  were  ill  contrived  and 
little  to  the  purpose."  "  An  intellectual  struggle,"  he 
added,  "  must  be  fought  out  intellectually  ;  or  practi- 
cally, when  one  has  to  contend  against  men  like 
Wegscheider,  one  course  only  remains — to  appoint 
other  individuals  of  sounder  metal  to  lecture  by  the 
side  of  them,  and  fairly  talk  them  down."  This  was 
exactly  the  course  taken  by  Altenstein,  the  Prussian 
minister  of  worship  ; 2  a  more  severe  policy  would 

1  Memoirs  of  Baron  Bunsen,  i.  362. 

2  See  Tholuck's   sketch  of  Altenstein,    Herzog-Plitt's  Real- 
encyclop.,  Bd.  i. 


GESENIUS.  S7 

have  been  impossible  without  destroying  that  scien- 
tific freedom  which  is  a  fundamental  principle  of 
German  universities.  So  Gescnius — the  u  Clericus 
redivivus,"  as  llengstcnbcrg  called  him — remained, 
and  continued  to  attract  large  audiences,  while 
Wcgscheider  (was  it  worth  while  to  persecute  him  ?) 
lectured  to  nearly  empty  benches.1  Once  only  was 
his  activity  interrupted  ;  it  was  in  1813-14.  He  had 
had  to  close  his  lectures  on  Isaiah  at  the  eleventh 
verse  of  the  fourteenth  chapter.  On  the  reopening  of 
the  university,  Gesenius  mounted  to  his  chair,  and 
read  aloud  the  famous  ode  of  triumph  which  contains 
the  words,  "  How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven,  O 
Lucifer,  son  of  the  morning !  "  He  died  at  the  early 
age  of  fifty- seven,  Oct.  23,  1842.2  Like  Ewald,  he 
visited  England  twice,  in  1S20  and  in  1835. 

Before  considering  the  published  works  of  Gesenius 
let  us  ask  what  made  this  scholar  such  a  power  in 
his  university  even  during  the  onward  rush  of  neo- 
orthodoxy.  That  he  was  disrespectful  to  orthodox 
explanations  of  Old  Testament  problems,  and  that 
he  indulged  in  mirth-provoking  sallies  in  his  lectures 
on  Church  history,  is  certain.  On  the  other  hand,  he 
never  sought  to  inculcate  rationalistic  doctrines,  or  to 

1  It  should  be  remembered  that  Tholuck,  a  man  of  fascinating 
personality,  and  not   narrow-minded   like    Hengstenberg,  had 
been  working  at  Halle  since   1827,  also  that  since  the  war  of 
liberation  a  sense  of  the  inadequacy  of  mere  rationalism  had 
become  more  and  more  prevalent. 

-  On   the  circumstances   attending   his   death,  cf.    Benecke, 
Wilhelm  I'atke,  pp.  391 — 395. 


58      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

foist  them  upon  the  Biblical  writers,1  and  it  appears 
that  what  the  best  students  of  that  generation  craved 
was,  not  a  mere  revived  orthodoxy,  but  a  theology 
which  could  adjust  itself  to  a  more  rational  and  critical 
view  of  the  Bible.  Gesenius  was  at  any  rate  accurate  in 
his  facts,  acute  in  his  criticism,  and  objective  though 
superficial  in  his  exegesis.  The  peals  of  laughter 
with  which  his  rationalistic  sallies  were  greeted  were 
therefore  no  proof  that  Gesenius  was  injuring  the  faith 
of  his  students,  or  hurting  their  religious  feelings. 
Exceptions  of  course  there  may  have  been.  Harless 
appears  to  have  been  one  of  those  who  were  painfully 
shocked  by  Gesenius  ;  Krummacher  was  another ; 
and  the  American  student  Hodge  (afterwards  such  a 
pillar  of  Calvinistic  orthodoxy  in  America)  was  a 
third.  In  fact,  the  theological  and  philosophical 
superficiality  of  the  lively  little  man  (as  he  is  described 
to  us  by  an  admiring  and  yet  critical  student2)  was 
only  too  obvious.  What  he  gave,  was  in  its  kind 
almost  perfect — at  least  for  that  period  ;  and  if  he 
omitted  much,  there  were  other  professors  to  be 
heard,  other  authors  to  be  read.  The  description 
which  the  student  gives  of  Gesenius,  both  in  his 
lecture-room  and  among  the  members  of  his  Semi- 
nar,   proves   conclusively   that    he   was   one   of  the 

1  "  Die  Wissenschaft  hatte  ich  erblickt  in  einer  entschieden 
rationellen  Behandlungsart,  aber  nicht  rationalistische  Lebens- 
fragen  als  Ausgangs-  und  Zielpunkte  aller  wissenschaftlichen 
Untersuchung,"  says  the  student  about  to  be  referred  to. 

2  See  Gesenius :  Zur  Erinnerung  fiir  seine  Freunde  (Berlin, 
1842;  p.  45). 


GESENIUS.  59 

most  gifted  teachers  which  Hebrew  and  Oriental 
studies  have  ever  had,  and  that  neither  Halle  nor 
Germany  could  have  afforded  to  lose  him.  That 
lightness  of  tone  which  had  the  appearance  of 
frivolity  in  a  Church  history  lecture  was  precisely 
what  made  the  dry  details  of  linguistic  science 
interesting  ;  that  incapacity  for  broad  philosophical 
views  was  but  the  reverse  side  of  a  philological 
accuracy  akin  to  that  exactitude  and  love  of  detail 
which  we  remark  in  all  successful  students  of  natural 
science.  Gesenius  no  doubt  inherited  this  from 
his  ancestors.  Though  not  himself  a  physician  like 
Astruc,  he  came  of  a  medical  family,  his  father  and 
his  great-uncle  having  both  been  physicians  of  some 
repute,  and  authors  of  medical  works.1  And  if 
Gesenius  was  not  too  devout,  yet  he  had  that  absorp- 
tion in  science  which  has  a  grandeur  not  unlike  that 
of  religion,  and  which  excites  in  the  devout  man  an 
involuntary  regretful  sympathy. 

If  this  view  of  Gesenius  is  correct,  we  cannot  but 
reckon  it  as  a  great  loss  to  Biblical  criticism  that  no 
direct  record  remains  of  his  fascinating  lectures,  which 
covered  the  whole  range  of  Old  Testament  subjects. 
Had  he  written  nothing,  indeed,  he  would  still  have 
been  one  of  the  founders  of  criticism  by  his  university 
teaching,  for  in  not  a  few  lectures  he  had  over  400 
hearers.  His  works  are  without  those  flashes  of  wit 
and  those  instructive  analogies  which  gave  so  much 

1  See  Hirsch,  Biographisches  Lexifcon  do '  Aerzte. 


60      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

Anschaulichkeit  to  his  oral  discourse.1  We  are  thank- 
ful for  them,  but  we  regret  that  more  time  was  not 
given  him  to  mature  and  to  condense  the  contents  of 
his  lectures,  and  to  continue  in  the  path,  on  which 
we  are  assured  that  he  had  entered,  of  progress  from 
mere  empiricism  to  the  study  of  the  ideas  which 
underlie  phenomena.  His  first  printed  work  was  an 
essay  on  the  Maltese  language,  in  which  he  for  the 
first  time  recognized  a  corruption  of  Arabic.  In  the 
same  year  he  published  vol.  i.  of  his  Hebrew-German 
Handworterbuch ;  vol.  ii.  appeared  in  1812.  This 
work  was  translated  into  English  by  a  pioneer  of 
Hebrew  studies  in  America,  Josiah  W.  Gibbs,  in  1824 
(from  the  edition  of  18 15).  The  Lexicon  Manuale, 
representing  much  riper  study,  was  published  in  1833  ; 
a  translation  of  this  was  published  by  Edward  Rob- 
inson of  Andover  (Mass.).  A  second  edition  of  the 
former  work  appeared  in  1834,  and  of  the  latter  in 
1847  (translated  by  S.  P.  Tregelles).  The  printing  of 
the  Thesaurus  philologicus  criticus  (3  vols.  4to)  began 
in  1826,  but  was  interrupted  by  the  death  of  the 
author,  whose  learned  friend  Emil  Rodiger  completed 
it  (1853 — 1858).  Gesenius's  hardly  less  important 
work  as  a  grammarian  began  in  1813,  when  his 
Hebrciische  Grammatik  first  appeared  (pp.  202). 
Fourteen  editions  appeared  in  his  own  lifetime,  and 
since  his  death  it  has  been  seven  times  re-edited 
by  Rodiger,  and    four   times   by  Prof.    Kautzsch   of 

1  See  Gesenius,  &c,  p.  32. 


GESENIUS.  6l 

Halle.1  The  Granitnatik  must  be  distinguished  from 
the  A  usfiihrliches  grammatisch-kritisches  Lehrgebaude 
der  hebr.  Spracke,  which  appeared  in  1817. 

On  these  important  and  ncvcr-to-bc-forgottcn 
works  much  might  be  said  in  another  context.  They 
formed  in  part  the  basis  of  the  best  exegesis  of  the 
last  generation,-  and  no  subsequent  Hebrew  gram- 
mars or  dictionaries  can  fail  to  be  indebted  to  them,  as 
has  been  sufficiently  shown,  from  a  lexicographical 
point  of  view,  in  the  preface  to  the  new  Anglo- 
American  Hebrew  Lexicon  (part  i.,  Oxford,  1892). 
And  though  Professor  Kautzsch  in  1S7S  found  himself 
obliged  to  put  the  Hebr.  Grammatik  into  a  new  form, 
no  disrespect  to  the  Altmeister  was  intended  thereby. 
Gesenius's  own  grammatical  work  was  rooted  in  the 
past,  and  improved  as  it  proceeded.  The  first  edition 
(18 1 3)  is  separated  by  no  deep  chasm  from  those 
which  preceded  it,  while  the  last  owes  something  to 
Ewald,  whose  treatment  of  Gesenius  was,  I  regret  to 
have  to  confess,  far  less  worthy  than  Gesenius's 
treatment  of  him.  As  I  hope  to  show  later,  the  two 
scholars  really  supplemented  each  other  ;  and  we  at 
any  rate  can  afford  to  forget  both  the  undevoutness 

1  The  Aiisfuhrliches  grammat.-kritisches  Lehrgebaude  der 
hebr.  Sprache,  a  separate  work,  appeared  in  1S17. 

2  De  Wette  says,  in  1S31,  in  the  preface  to  his  Old  Testament 
(ed.  2),  "  My  explanation  of  the  Old  Testament  agrees  for  the 
most  part  with  that  of  Gesenius,  so  far  as  this  is  known  from 
his  Lexicon  and  from  other  sources  ;  indeed,  from  the  first  I  am 
happy  to  have  been  in  the  greatest  possible  agreement  with  this 
excellent  friend." 


62      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD    TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

of  the  one  and  the  uncouthness  and  irritability  of  the 
other. 

Another  valuable  work  of  Gesenius  is  his  History 
of  the  Hebrew  Language  (1815).  The  work  can  now 
only  be  read  with  caution,  but  it  will  be  some  time 
before  a  trained  scholar  has  the  boldness  to  resume 
this  subject.  In  one  point  certainly  Gesenius  was 
but  ill  equipped  for  his  task.  This  great  Orientalist 
was  not  deeply  versed  in  later  Hebrew,  though  as  he 
went  on  he  bestowed  much  pains  on  utilizing  the 
lexicographical  works  of  the  Rabbis.  His  great 
contribution  to  exegesis,  the  Commentary  on  Isaiah 
(1820-21,  2  vols.),  furnishes  many  proofs  of  this.  In 
fact,  in  all  respects  this  work  is  a  mine  of  accurate 
philological  and  historical  information  up  to  its  date. 
Its  Biblical  theology,  it  is  true,  cannot  receive  high 
praise.  And  yet  Gesenius's  view  of  prophecy,  im- 
perfect as  it  is  in  many  respects,  is  superior  to  the 
merely  aesthetic  view  often  expressed  by  the  older 
rationalists  ;  he  seems  to  have  learned  something 
from  De  Wette,  whom  he  so  earnestly  advised  young 
Wilhelm  Vatke  to  read,  mark,  and  inwardly  digest.1 
The  prophet,  according  to  Gesenius,  is  not  merely  a 
"  poet  of  nature,"  but  a  "  herald  and  watchman  of  the 
theocracy  and  the  theocratic  faith."  He  repudiates 
equally  the  opinion  that  the  "  men  of  God  "  acted  by 
calculation  and  with  artfully  arranged  plans,  and  that 

1  Benecke,  Wilhelm  Valke,  p.  27.  De  Wette,  on  his  side, 
owns  obligations  to  Gesenius  in  his  translation  of  Isaiah  and  in 
his  criticism  of  Daniel. 


GESENIUS,  63 

the  oracles   respecting  the   future  are  merely  veiled 

historical  exhibitions  of  the  present  or  even  of  the 
past.  He  fails  indeed  to  do  justice  to  the  prophetic 
ideas,  and  to  trace  the  connexion  of  the  prophets 
with  the  progress  of  the  religion  of  Israel,  but  this  is 
at  any  rate  better  than  misrepresenting  those  ideas 
and  that  great  progressive  movement.  Both  in 
criticism  of  the  text  and  in  the  higher  criticism,  the 
characteristic  of  Gesenius's  Isaiah  is  moderation  and 
circumspection — the  very  qualities  which  the  keen- 
eyed  student  referred  to  above  remarked  in  his 
lectures  on  critical  "  introduction."  For  these 
qualities  one  may  justly  praise  Gesenius,  having 
regard  to  the  period  when  he  lived.  In  the  previous 
age  there  had  been  an  epidemic  of  arbitrary  emend- 
ation in  the  department  of  textual  criticism,  and  a 
tendency  (at  any  rate  among  some 'higher  critics" 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  Isaiah)  to  break  up  the  text 
into  a  number  of  separate  pieces,  which  threatened  to 
open  the  door  to  unbounded  caprice.  With  a  view 
to  sound  and  safe  progress,  and  in  order  to  bridge 
over  the  gulf  between  extreme  parties,  it  was  de- 
sirable that  some  eminent  philologist  should  come 
forward  as  an  advocate  of  moderate  caution,  and, 
while  not  denying  the  more  obvious  results  of  the 
last  thirty  years'  work,  should  devote  himself  chiefly 
to  a  critical  study  of  the  linguistic  side  of  the  Old 
Testament,  as  handed  down  to  us.  No  thoroughly 
trained  critic  can,  in  my  judgment,  now  stand  where 
Gesenius  stood  then,  with  regard  either  to  the  cor- 


64      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

rection  of  the  text  or  to  the  "  higher  criticism."     The 
Massoretic  text  is  not  as  defensible  as  Gesenius,  with 
his  limited  critical  insight  and  too  empirical  gram- 
matical views,  supposed,  and,  without   in    the  least 
professing  to  defend  the  "  fragmentists  "  in  Pentateuch 
criticism,  there  can  hardly  be  a  doubt  that  there  was 
a   large   element  of  truth  in   Koppe's   disintegrating 
criticism  of  Isaiah.1     It  is  very  singular  that  a  less 
exact  scholar  than  Gesenius  should  have  taken  up  a 
position  which,   from  our  present  point   of  view,  is 
more  defensible  than  that  of  the   Halle  philologist. 
Eichhorn,     who     opposed     the     "  fragmentists "     in 
Pentateuch-criticism,  fully  (indeed,  too  fully)  admitted 
the  justification  for  Koppe's  disintegration  of  Isaiah. 
But  then,  Eichhorn  left  his  work  not  half  done  ;   he 
ought  to  have  produced  a  thorough  commentary  on 
Isaiah,  showing  that  a  considerable  amount  of  disin- 
tegration   was  not   uncalled    for   on    exegetical   and 
historical  grounds.     Now,  it  is  true  that  Eichhorn  did 
translate  and  comment  on  the  Hebrew  prophets,  but  he 
aimed  more  than  was  right  at  popularity.     He  had 
his  reward,  for  he  won  the  ear  of  Goethe,  but  he  did 
not  win  that  of  deeper  Hebrew  scholars  like  Gesenius. 
Though  the  disciple  of  Eichhorn,  Gesenius  within  his 
own  range  was  far  in  advance  of  his  old  master. 
Another  attempt  had  yet  to  be  made  to  cover  the 

1  Gesenius  did  not,  happily,  altogether  deny  the  composite 
origin  of  Isa.  xl. — lxvi.,  but  his  concessions  were  altogether  too 
slight.  I  have  written  more  at  length  on  this  in  the  Jewish 
Quart.  Rev.  for  July  1891. 


GESENIUS.  65 

same  wide  range  of  study  which  Eichhorn  touched — 
an  attempt  which,  if  it  did  not  succeed,  yet  deserves 
our  admiration  and  respect.  The  goal  was  too 
distant  even  for  one  of  the  most  gifted  scholars  of 
that  or  any  age  ;  "  quern  si  non  tcnuit,  magnis  tamen 
excidit  ausis."  To  this  great  but  faulty  scholar,  who 
is  now  in  danger  in  England  of  a  depreciation  as 
excessive  as  the  former  worship  of  him,  I  now  ask 
the  reader  to  turn  his  attention. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

EWALD   (i).— THE  DEVELOPMENT   PERIOD.1 

It  will,  I  hope,  not  be  thought  paradoxical  if  I 
associate  the  names  of  Butler  and  Ewald.  Different 
as  they  are  in  many  respects,  I  venture  to  trace  a 
real  historical  connexion  between  them.  To  Queen 
Caroline's  insight  was  due  the  promotion  of  Bishop 
Butler,  and  the  influence  of  the  same  wise  queen  was 
not  without  weight  in  the  foundation  of  the  university 
of  Gottingen.  Of  that  renowned  Hochschide,  Ewald 
is  one  of  the  most  typical  representatives.  History 
and  philology  were  from  the  first  the  most  favoured 
subjects  in  this  emphatically  statesmanlike  institution, 
and  history  and  philology  constitute  the  field  on 
which  Heinrich  Ewald  has  won  imperishable  fame. 
Butler,  both  as  an  ethical  philosopher  and  a  theo- 
logian, would  have  been  at  home  in  Gottingen,  where, 
both  in  theology  and  in  philosophy,  observation  and 
facts  have  always  had  the  precedence  over  a  priori 
speculation,  and  where  theoretic  theology  in  particular 

1  The  two  chapters  on  Ewald  are  mainly  composed  of  two 
public  academical  lectures  delivered  by  the  author  at  Oxford, 
June  1886,  and  printed  in  the  Expositor. 


EWALD.  67 

has  ever  had  a  moderate  and  so  to  speak  Butlerian 
tinge.  Ewald  on  his  side  would  in  some  respects 
have  been  at  home  in  England,  at  any  rate  in  the 
more  liberal  England  of  to-day.  He  had  always  a 
tenderness  for  this  country  ;  and  even  if  we  can 
partly  justify  our  predecessors  for  the  suspiciousness 
of  their  attitude  towards  him,  we  may  nevertheless 
hold  that,  with  all  their  defects,  no  books  can  be 
more  important  for  advanced  Bible-students  than 
those  of  Ewald.  He  may  indeed  be  as  useful  to  us 
in  our  present  stage  as  he  was  in  his  earlier  period  to 
Germany  ;  and  if  his  influence  is  waning  there,  let  us 
not  be  backward  to  accord  him  a  friendly  reception 
here.  The  Germans,  it  appears,  would  fain  annex 
Richard  Bentley  ;  let  us  retaliate  by  annexing  or 
assimilating  all  that  is  best  in  the  great,  the  faulty, 
but  the  never-to-be-forgotten  Heinrich  Ewald. 

I  am  not  one  of  those  who  think  it  the  duty  of  a 
biographer  to  idolize  his  hero,  and  shall  have,  alas ! 
to  admit  that  Ewald  failed  in  a  serious  degree  to 
attain  his  high  ideal.  But  he  has  been  to  many, 
thank  God !  a  source  of  truest  inspiration,  and  the 
tragedy  of  his  career  diminishes  in  no  respect  their 
reverence  for  his  memory.  Suffer  me  to  show  you 
this  childlike  great  man  in  his  strength  and  in  his 
weakness. 

He  was  born  at  Gottingen  Nov.  16,  1803,  and  there 
most  of  his  life  was  passed.  A  touch  of  provincialism 
was  therefore  native  to  Ewald,  and  thiswas  not  counter- 
acted by  that  variety  of  culture  which  many  German 


68      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

students  gain  by  a  change  of  university.  Ewald 
himself,  it  is  true,  saw  no  reason  to  desire  a  change. 
He  was  destined  to  set  an  example  of  concentration, 
and  this  object  could  nowhere  be  better  secured  than 
in  Gottingen.  Did  he  want  recreation  ?  There  was 
that  ample  library,  then  not  less  famous  than  the 
university  itself.  He  had  no  time  for  that  social 
intercourse  of  fellow-students  which  it  is  so  sweet  to 
most  to  look  back  upon,  his  laborious  day  being 
divided  between  his  own  studies  and  private  tuition. 
He  was  never  caught  up,  like  even  Michaelis,1  into 
the  contemporary  aesthetic  movement,  nor  did  he 
ever,  like  Herder,  pass  under  the  spell  of  philosophy. 
He  had  indeed,  as  his  works  prove,  a  sense  of  poetic 
art,  and  even  more  a  deep  love  of  ideas,  but  art  and 
ideas  were  to  him  but  the  historical  manifestations  of 
national  life.  By  one  of  those  strange  impulses  which 
so  often  occur  in  the  history  of  genius,  he  chose  the 
East  for  his  field  of  study  while  still  at  the  gymnasium. 
If  he  studied  the  classics,  it  was  clearly  not  as  the 
humanities,  but  as  a  necessary  part  of  his  historical 
apparatus  ;  for  he  well  knew  that  no  language  or 
literature  can  be  adequately  studied  by  itself.     His 

1  See  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Poetischer  Entwurf  der  Gedanken  des 
Prediger-Buch  Salomons  (Gottingen,  175 1).  In  the  preface  he 
speaks  of  amusing  himself  with  poetical  composition.  Ewald 
very  rarely  refers  to  German  literature.  Herder  he  only  mentions 
as  a  writer  on  the  Old  Testament.  Once  he  speaks  of  the  good 
fortune  of  Eichhorn  in  working  during  the  blossoming  time  of 
the  national  intellect,  and  once  he  highly  eulogizes  Klopstock 
in  a  characteristic  note,  omitted  in  the  English  translation  of  the 
History  (see  the  German  edition,  iii.  306,  note  1). 


EWALD.  69 

Latin  is  not  that  of  Bishop  Lowth,  but  as  a  com- 
pensation even  his  early  works  show  a  deep  know- 
ledge of  Arabic  literature.  Eichhorn  and  Tychsen, 
both  distinguished  Orientalists,  were  his  academical 
teachers  ;  for  both  of  them  he  cherished  feelings  of 
piety,  though  he  would  not  own  that  they  had  materi- 
ally influenced  his  opinions.  And  yet,  though  I  can 
easily  imagine  that  Ewald's  mind  was  very  early 
mature,  I  think  he  was  influenced,  especially  by 
Eichhorn,  to  whom  his  own  principles  and  career 
present  several  points  of  resemblance.  Eichhorn,  so 
generously  eulogized  of  late  by  Dr.  Edersheim,1  was 
at  least  as  many-sided  though  not  as  profound  as 
Ewald.  He  loved  the  Bible  as  being  a  literature,  as 
well  as  the  record  of  a  revelation  ;  I  say  the  Bible, 
because,  like  Ewald,  Eichhorn  was  not  merely  an  Old 
Testament  scholar.  He  was  also,  in  the  best  sense 
of  the  word,  like  Ewald  an  advanced  Biblical  critic. 
And  it  must  be  added  that,  though  like  Ewald  and 
every  other  great  critic  he  stood  aloof  from  theological 
quarrels,  he  yet  retained  an  unflagging  interest  in  the 
progress  of  religious  thought.  Like  Ewald  again,  he 
was  not  merely  a  Hebraist  but  a  Semitic  philologist, 
and  propagated  that  sound  doctrine  of  the  so-called 
Tenses,  which  is  due  especially  to  that  patriarch  of 
Semitic  learning,  Albert  Schultens.  He  was,  like 
Ewald  in  his  best  days,  a  popular  and  indefatigable 
lecturer,  but  not  content  with  this,  he  acknowledged 

1  See  above,  p.  25. 


JO     FOUNDERS   OF  OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

a  responsibility  to  the  world  of  scholars  in  general. 
For  many  years,1  following  the  example  of  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  he  published  an  Allgemeine  Bibliothek  fur 
biblische  Litteratur  (all  his  own  work),  and  a  Reper- 
toriumfur  morgenldndische  Litteratur,  which  reminds 
us  of  the  Biblische  J ahrbiicher  and  the  Zeitschrift  filr 
die  Kunde  des  Morgenlandes,  the  latter  mainly  founded 
by  Ewald,  the  former  entirely  written  by  him,  only 
that  Eichhorn's  style  is  far  more  lucid  than  Ewald's, 
and  his  tolerance  as  charming  as  Ewald's  intolerance 
is  painful.  Lastly,  the  influence  of  Eichhorn  on  con- 
temporary thought  was  at  least  equal  in  extent,  if  not 
in  intensity,  to  that  of  his  great  disciple. 

Do  not  think  this  a  digression.  Part  of  the  great- 
ness of  Ewald's  life  is  its  consistency.  Such  as  he 
was  at  the  opening  of  his  career,  such  in  all  essentials 
he  remained  to  its  close.  He  found  much  to  learn, 
but  very  little  to  unlearn.  He  tells  us  himself2  that 
he  never  had  to  pass  through  circuitous  paths  of 
gloom,  nor  through  grievous  inward  struggles  ;  that 
from  the  first  he  perceived  that  the  fearful-seeming 
New  is  really  nothing  but  the  Old,  better  understood 
and  farther  developed.  This  consistency  is  not  to  be 
accounted  for  solely  by  tenacity  of  character ;  it 
implies  also  that  he  fell  in  with  wise  and  congenial 
teachers.  He  was  consistent,  because  he  lost  no  time 
through  being  badly  taught,  and  because  he  found  a 

1  I  might  have  added  that  from  Heyne's  death  to  his  own 
Eichhorn  edited  the  well-known  G'6tti?igische  gelehrte  Afizeigen. 

2  Die  poetischen  Biicher  des  A.  T.,  iv.  (1837),  p.  249. 


F.WALD.  7 1 

work  ready  to  his  hand.  He  carried  on  the  work  of 
his  teacher,  Eichhorn,  supplementing  Eichhorn's  de- 
ficiencies and  correcting  his  faults,  just  as  Eichhorn 
carried  on  that  of  Herder  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Michaelis  on  the  other.  The  portraits  of  Herder  and 
Eichhorn,  indeed,  hung  on  the  walls  of  Ewald's  study 
as  if  to  remind  him  of  the  aim  and  spirit  of  their 
common  enterprise.  That  aim  was  nothing  less  than 
the  recovery  of  the  true  meaning  of  the  Bible,  and  the 
spirit  in  which  it  was  pursued  by  these  three  great 
men  was  not  less  practical  than  scientific.  Herder 
and  Ewald  especially  had  a  full  consciousness  of  the 
religious  interests  staked  on  the  success  of  their  work, 
and  when  Ewald  speaks,  in  the  History  of  CJirist,  of 
the  "  wondrous  charm  of  a  task  which  germinates  out 
of  a  Divine  appointment  and  necessity,"1  it  is  difficult 
to  think  that  the  words  did  not  flow  from  the  experi- 
ence of  his  youthful  days.  The  Church-historian, 
Hase,  has  described  Ewald,  in  language  suggested 
perhaps  by  a  famous  saying  of  Hegel,  as  a  prophet 
with  backward  gaze.2  Ewald's  style  and  manner  are 
often  in  character  with  this  function,  and  many  a 
striking  passage  in  his  prefaces  suggests  an  inner 
experience  analogous  to  that  of  a  prophetic  call. 
"Truly,"  he  says  in  his  JoJiannine  Writings,  "if  God 
did  not  give  us  in  youth  a  surplus  of  boldest  enter- 
prise and  cheerfullest  faith,  and  thrust  us,  whether  we 
would  or  no,  into  the  midst  of  His  truths  and  ever- 

1  Geschichte  C/iristus,  p.  1S3. 
-  Kircliengtschichte,  p.  5S2. 


72      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

lasting  powers,  O  how  should  we  find  the  force  and 
the  confidence  amid  tedious  temptations  and  struggles 
always  to  be  true  to  that  which  we  have  once  for  all 
recognized  as  the  True  in  itself,  and  also  in  His 
goodness  and  His  grace,  as  our  undeniable  duty."  * 
Ewald,  then,  felt  himself  called  to  do  a  prophet's 
work  for  the  history  and  literature  of  the  prophet- 
people  Israel,  and  called,  first  of  all,  to  a  more  special 
preparation,  to  which  the  outer  events  of  his  life  were 
to  be  made  subservient.  And  the  very  first  change 
which  came  was  advantageous  to  the  future  expositor 
and  historian.  As  a  youthful  graduate  of  nineteen, 
he  became  in  1823  a  teacher  in  the  gymnasium  at 
Wolfenbiittel  (in  the  duchy  of  Brunswick,  thirty-seven 
miles  from  Hanover),  with  free  access  to  that  fine 
library  of  which  Lessing  had  once  been  the  keeper. 
There  he  occupied  his  leisure  by  studying  and  making 
extracts  from  Arabic  MSS.,  feeling  doubtless  already 
the  great  importance  of  Arabic,  both  for  the  language 
and  for  the  literature  of  the  Hebrew  race.  On  this 
subject  let  me  quote  to  you  the  words  of  Ewald  in 
1 83 1,  "Linguae  arabicae,  semiticarum  principis,  cog- 
nitio  diligentior  ceterarum  stirpis  hujus  linguarum, 
hebraeae  potissimum,  studio  non  utilissimum  tantum  est 
sed  necessarium  prorsus.  .  .  .  Tutoque  contendas, 
qui  cultissimam  stirpis  hujus  linguam  bene  perspexerit 
hunc  demum  circa  omnes  semiticas  haud  caecutire  in- 
cipere "  ;  2  and  for   the  other  part  of  my  statement 

1  Die  Joha7ineischen  Schriften,  ii.  "  Vorrede,"  S.  v. 

2  Grammatica  critica  linguce  Arabicce,  Pref.  p.  iii. 


EWALD.  73 

those  of  one  of  Ewald's  greatest  pupils  :  "  I  have  no 
doubt  that  the  original  gifts  and  ideas  of  the  primitive 
Hebrews  can  most  readily  be  understood  by  comparing 
Arabian  antiquity."  l 

This  is  not  the  time  to  explain  the  sense  in  which 
these  two  statements  are  to  be  understood.  Ewald 
himself  used  Arabic  more  for  the  purposes  of  philology 
than  for  those  of  what  may  be  called  comparative 
ethnic-psychology.  And  no  doubt  philological  pur- 
poses are  the  most  important  from  the  point  of  view 
of  exegesis  and  of  theology.  Ewald  would  therefore 
have  hailed  the  recent  institution  of  an  Oriental 
School  or  Tripos  in  our  two  old  English  universities. 
Himself  by  taste,  though  not,  I  admit,  equally  by 
endowments,  at  once  philologist  and  theologian,  he 
would  have  insisted  on  the  importance  not  only  of 
Hebrew  to  the  theologian,  but  of  the  other  Semitic 
languages  to  the  Hebraist.  He  was  himself  by  no 
means  a  biassed  advocate  of  the  claims  of  Arabic, 
though  circumstances  early  drew  his  special  attention 
to  it,  and  the  richness  and  variety  of  its  literature, 
combined  with  the  exquisite  refinement  of  its  style, 
made  it  perhaps  his  favourite  among  the  Semitic 
languages.  His  own  position  on  the  relationship 
between  the  Semitic  languages  is  best  seen  from  his 
A  bhandlung  ilbcr  die  gcscJiicJitliche  Folgc  dcr  scmitiscJicn 
Sprachen  (1871),  with  which  compare  his  remarks  in 
§  7  of  his  Arabic  Grammar. 

1  Wellhausen,  Skizzen  und  Vorarbeiten^  Heft  1. 


74      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Ewald  was  now  a  schoolmaster.  But  he  had  no 
intention  of  remaining  in  this  profession.  He  wished 
to  think  his  own  thoughts  away  from  Eichhorn,  and 
to  make  researches  in  a  fresh  library,  preparatory  to 
another  book.  To  another  book,  you  will  say  ?  Yes  ; 
for  his  first  book,  though  published  at  Brunswick,  was 
the  fruit  of  his  student  leisure  at  Gottingen  ;  he  must 
have  begun  to  print  almost  as  soon  as  he  had  arrived 
at  Wolfenbiittel.  It  was  called  Die  Composition  der 
Genesis  kritisch  imtersucht,  and  bears  the  date  1823. 
Ewald's  acuteness  and  ingenuity  are  already  abund- 
antly displayed  in  this  volume ;  he  seeks  to  show  that 
there  is  a  unity  in  the  Book  of  Genesis  and  a  well- 
ordered  plan  which  of  itself  forbids  the  literary 
analysis  of  Genesis,  whether  into  documents  or 
into  fragments.  "  Critics,"  he  says,  "  will  no 
longer  see  different  narrators  where  the  greatest 
harmony  displays  itself,  nor  divide  into  separate 
fragments  that  which  thousandfold  bands  both  join 
and  interlace  with  such  exactness."  It  was  certainly 
dangerous  for  so  young  an  author  to  publish  his 
results  ;  for  how  few  are  able  to  retract  what  they 
have  once  said  in  print !  Happily  at  this  early  period 
Ewald  had  still  the  power  of  self-criticism,  and  upon 
further  reflection  retracted  the  negative  inference  re- 
ferred to.  His  words  are,  "  I  gladly  take  the  oppor- 
tunity of  declaring  that  the  book  referred  to  has  now, 
so  far  as  this  single  point  is  concerned,  only  historical 
significance."  This  was  in  a  review  of  Stahelin's 
Kritische    Untersuchungen,    published    in    the    TheoL 


EWALD.  75 

Studien  unci  Kritiken  in  183 1,  the  same  year,  it  is 
not  irrelevant  to  remark,  in  which  he  published  his 
critical  Arabic  grammar.  A  deeper  study  of  the 
phenomena  of  Genesis  had  shown  him  the  complexity 
of  the  critical  problem,  and  the  inadmissibility  of  a 
simple  and,  from  a  purely  Western  point  of  view,  a 
natural  solution,  and  a  wider  acquaintance  with  the 
Arabic  historians  had  revealed  a  process  of  compo- 
sition which  made  him  repent  his  precipitate  rejection 
of  both  the  hitherto  current  critical  hypotheses.  It 
was  in  fact  an  epoch-making  article — this  review  of 
Stahelin's  now  forgotten  work.  Some  one  had  at 
last  expressed  what  many  others  were  privately 
meditating.  A  supplement-hypothesis  had  to  be 
joined  to  the  old  document-hypothesis.  Ewald  him- 
self sought  to  make  this  evident  in  the  first  volume 
of  his  History \  but  his  eccentric  terminology  and  his 
too  positive  and  dogmatic  tone  deprived  him  of  the 
influence  to  which  his  great  ability  entitled  him. 

Ewald,  then,  had  to  withdraw  from  one  of  the 
principal  positions  of  his  early  book.  Yet  we  may 
be  glad  that  he  wrote  it.  It  helps  us  to  refute  the 
charge  that  he  dealt  merely  in  fancy-criticism.  It 
shows  that  even  in  youth,  when  the  fancy  is  generally 
at  its  strongest,  he  was  fully  aware  of  the  dangers 
which  beset  critical  analysis,  and  if  at  the  age  of 
nineteen  he  could  not  fully  realize  the  nature  of  the 
problem  of  Genesis,  much  less  solve  it,  yet  he  made 
one  positive  contribution  of  value  to  the  critical  con- 
troversy— he  made  it  impossible  henceforth  to  assert 


J6      FOUNDERS  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

that  the  Book  of  Genesis,  as  it  now  stands,  is  without 
a  plan.1  It  is  pleasing  to  be  able  to  say  that,  though 
the  youthful  Ewald  freely  criticized  not  only  Vater 
but  Eichhorn,  the  latter  did  not  withhold  his  com- 
mendation, and  in  the  following  year  (1824)  procured 
Ewald's  recall  to  Gottingen  as  repetent  or  Tutorial 
Fellow  in  the  Theological  Faculty. 

This,  however,  as  might  be  expected,  was  only  a 
transition  ;  in  1827  he  was  promoted  to  a  professor- 
ship. Just  as  Eichhorn,  when  called  to  Gottingen, 
had  three  years  and  no  more  to  work  with  Michaelis, 
so  Ewald,  in  the  like  circumstances,  had  but  the  same 
space  of  time  allotted  him  as  the  colleague  of  Eich- 
horn. The  veteran's  work  was  done.  He  had  sketched 
the  main  outlines  of  the  right  method  of  Biblical 
criticism,  and  had  himself  brought  out  by  it  not  a 
few  assured  results  ;  but  an  infinite  amount  of  Detail- 
forschung)  of  minute  research,  had  yet  to  be  gone 
through,  before  that  historical  reconstruction  for 
which  he  longed  could  safely  be  attempted.  The 
captious  and  arbitrary  procedure  and  unrefreshing 
results  of  less  able  and  less  sympathetic  critics  than 
Eichhorn  had  disgusted  very  many  with  the  Old 
Testament,  and  we  hear  Tholuck  saying  in  his  in- 
augural lecture  at  Halle  in  1 821,  that  "for  the  last 
twenty  or  thirty  years  the  opinion  has  been  generally 
prevalent,  that  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament  for 
theologians,  as  well  as  the  devotional  reading  of  it 

1  Comp.  Westphal,  Les  sources,  &c,  i.  182. 


EWALD.  j  j 

for  the  laity,  is  cither  entirely  profitless  or  at  least 
promises  but  little  advantage."  l 

The  prejudice  lingered  on  in  Germany,  and  exercised 
a  pernicious  influence  on  the  historical  and  theological 
views  of  such  eminent  personages  as  Schleiermacher, 
Hegel,  and  Baur,  the  Gnostics  of  modern  times,  as 
Ewald  severely  styles  them.  See  how  much  hangs 
on  the  completeness  of  a  theological  professoriate  ! 
If  Halle  and  Tubingen  had  had  Old  Testament  pro- 
fessors like  Eichhorn,  or  if  those  three  great  men  had 
finished  their  theological  studies  (for  Hegel,  as  you 
know,  began  as  a  tJicolog)  at  Gottingen,  upon  how 
much  sounder  a  basis  in  one  important  respect  would 
their  systems  rest !  Would  the  youthful  successor  of 
Eichhorn  be  the  man  to  destroy  this  prejudice  ?  He 
aspired  to  be  this  and  even  more  than  this  ;  we  shall 
see  later  on  what  it  was  that  hindered  his  complete 
success.  But  we  shall  do  well  to  remember  at  this 
point  that  other  chosen  instruments  were  in  course  of 
training  simultaneously  with  Ewald.  I  need  only 
mention  Umbreit,  Bleek,  and  Hengstenberg,  the 
former  of  whom  became  professor  at  Heidelberg  in 
1 823,  and  the  two  latter  professors  at  Berlin  in  1823  and 
1828  respectively.  To  all  these  men  we  in  England 
are,  in  various  degrees,  directly  or  indirectly  indebted. 
It  would  be  unseemly  for  us  to  depreciate  the  merits 

1  Einigc  apologctischc  Wink e  fur  das  Studiiun  des  A.  T.*s9deH 
Studirenden  des  jetzigen  Decenniums geii'idmct,  translated  under 
the  title,  "  Hints  on  the  Importance  of  the  Study  of  the  Old 
Testament/'  in  Philological  Tracts,  edited  by  John  Brown,  D.D., 
vol.  i.  (Edinburgh,  1833). 


yS      FOUNDERS   OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

even  of  an  ultra-conservative  like  Hengstenberg. 
Sixty  years  ago  the  prospects  of  a  renaissance  of  Old 
Testament  studies  in  England  seemed  hopeless,  and 
without  the  help  of  Protestant  German  scholars  of 
different  schools  the  efforts  of  the  friends  of  progress 
would  have  had  but  little  success. 

I  am  now  approaching  the  most  important  part  of 
Ewald's  life,  and  am  anxious  to  show  that  the  subject 
of  my  lecture  has  a  living  interest  for  English  students. 
Ewald's  success  or  failure  in  Germany  meant,  though 
few  doubtless  knew  it  at  the  time,  the  success  or 
failure  of  the  cause  of  the  Old  Testament  in  England. 
I  appeal  to  our  young  students  to  regard  the  life  and 
work  of  Ewald  with  something  of  the  same  gratitude 
with  which  they  regard  that  of  our  own  Lightfoot. 
Of  the  religious  spirit  in  which  Ewald  entered  on  his 
career  I  have  spoken  already.  That  inner  experience 
which  I  have  referred  to  as  a  call,  gave  a  sanctity,  if 
I  may  say  so,  to  the  most  abstruse  questions  of 
philological  research.  In  1825  Ewald  published  a 
small  treatise  on  Arabic  metres,  the  results  of  which 
were  incorporated  into  his  Arabic  Grammar,  and  in 
1827  made  his  first  incursion  into  the  domain  of  the 
Aryan  languages  by  an  essay  on  some  of  the  older 
Sanskrit  metres.  The  young  scholar,  you  will  see, 
chafes  already  at  restrictions  ;  he  will  not  be  outdone 
by  the  great  English  theologians  of  the  seventeenth 
century  ;  he  will  be  an  Orientalist,  and  not  merely  a 
Semitic  scholar.  Soon  you  will  see  that  he  is  not 
content  with  being  in  the  bare  sense  an  Orientalist ; 


i:\vald.  79 

he  will  be  a  comparative  philologist.  And  yet  we 
cannot  doubt  that  the  religious  interest  animates  all 
his  philological  work.  He  has  a  deep  sense  of  the 
wonderfulness  of  "  God's  greatest  gift  "  x — language, 
and  none  of  the  Biblical  conceptions  does  he  appre- 
ciate more  than  that  of  the  Logos.  He  will  delight 
ever  afterwards  to  trace  the  resemblances  and  the  dif- 
ferences of  the  Biblical  and  the  other  religions,  and  in 
his  great  series  of  annual  Biblical  reviews  he  is  careful 
not  to  omit  illustrative  works  on  Oriental  subjects. 
In  all  this  he  did  but  act  in  the  spirit  of  his  pre- 
decessor Eichhorn,  who  had  a  true  presentiment  of 
the  future  importance  of  the  comparative  study  of 
sacred  books.  In  1826  this  taste  of  his  was  strength- 
ened by  a  literary  journey  to  Berlin,  where  he  had 
fruitful  intercourse  with  one  of  the  older  Sanskrit 
scholars,  F.  A.  Rosen.  One  incidental  result  of  his 
Sanskrit  studies  was  the  discovery  (as  it  seemed  to 
him)  of  the  manifold  use  of  Sanskrit  for  the  correct 
explanation  of  Hebrew.  It  is,  in  fact,  in  this  early 
period  that  he  allowed  himself  the  widest  range.  In 
1826,  the  year  of  his  Berlin  visit,  he  began  to  lecture 
on  Sanskrit,  to  which  he  afterwards  added  Persian, 
Turkish,  Armenian,  Coptic:  I  need  not  mention 
specially  the  various  Semitic  languages.2  It  is  as  if 
he   had   taken  to  heart   the  saying  of  Bp.  Pearson, 

1  Max  Miiller,  Science  of  Language,  i.  3. 

2  Among  the  Orientalists  who  passed  through  the  school  of 
Ewald  may  be  mentioned  Schleicher,  Osiander,  Dillmann, 
Schrader,  and,  one  of  the  latest,  Stern  the  Egyptologist. 


8o      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

"  Non  est  theologus  nisi  qui  et  Mithradates."  He 
even  planned  a  work  on  the  history  and  comparative 
grammar  of  the  Semitic  languages.1  His  taste, 
however,  was  chiefly  for  Arabic,  though  the  only  text 
which  he  published  was  that  of  Wakidi  on  the 
Conquest  of  Mesopotamia,  in  1827.  He  once  hoped  to 
compose  a  history  of  the  intellectual  movement  among 
the  Arabs,  closing  with  the  death  of  Mohammed  ; 2 
a  task,  it  would  seem,  for  which  the  materials  are 
still  too  scanty.  I  should  suppose  that  a  vast  number 
of  ideas  were  continually  arising  in  his  fertile  brain, 
and  slowly  taking  shape  in  lectures,  articles,  and 
reviews.  But  none  of  them,  I  am  sure,  was  allowed 
to  obscure  the  master-project  on  which  he  said,  in 
1859,  that  his  mind  had  been  working  for  far  more  than 
thirty  years — the  project  of  a  history  of  the  growth  of 
true  religion  in  the  midst  of  the  people  of  Israel. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  first  Old  Testament  book 
to  which  Ewald  devoted  himself  in  the  maturity  of 
his  powers,  was  one  "  in  less  direct  connexion  with 
lofty  interests  " — the  Song  of  Songs.  By  selecting  it, 
he  not  only  evidenced  his  firm  adhesion  to  the  view 
of  the  Old  Testament  as  a  literature,  established  by 
Lowth,  Herder,  and  Eichhorn,  but  took  the  first  step 
towards  ascertaining  that  frankly  human  basis  of  a 
sound  and  healthy  popular  life  on  which  alone   the 

1  Grammatica  critica  lingua  Arabiccz,  vol.  ii.  Prasf.  p.  iii. ; 
comp.  "  Vorrede"  to  the  Hebrew  Grammar  of  1827. 

2  Abhandlung  iiber  die  geschichtliche  Folge  der  Semiiischen 
Sprachen  (1871),  p.  61,  note* 


i:\vald.  Si 

superstructure    of   what    he    loves    to   call    the    true 
religion  could  possibly  be  reared.    He  is  proof  against 
the    temptation    to    which     a    lamented     Cambridge 
Orientalist  (E.  H.  Palmer)  succumbed,  when   he  said, 
"If  you    would    feel  that  Song  of  Songs,  then   join 
awhile  the  mystic  circle  of  the    Stiffs."     The  extra- 
vagant  mysticism  to  which    Tholuck  had    not    long 
before  introduced  the   European  world  *  was  alien  to 
the  thoroughly  practical,  and  in   this  respect  Jewish 
mind    of   Ewald.     The  Song  of  Songs  is  to  him  not 
the  work  of  a  theosophist — that  is  too  high  a  view ; 
nor  yet  is  it  a  mere  collection  of  love-poems — that  is 
too   low  a  view ;  it  "  is  one  whole,  and  constitutes  a 
sort  of  popular  drama,  or,  more  correctly  speaking,  a 
cantata,"  describing  the  victory  of  true  love,  and  thus, 
without  the  least  sign  of  conscious  purpose,  promoting 
the   highest    ends   of   morality.     This    is  not  one  of 
Ewald's   greatest   works,  but  it  is  one  of  the    most 
pleasing   from    the  delicacy  of  its  tone,  a  quality  in 
which    Hitzig's   work    on    the    Song   is    lamentably 
deficient.     The  author  is  doubtless  too  ingenious  in 
restoring  what  he  thinks  the  proper  form  of  the  poem,2 
and  yet,  though  neither  in  this  nor  in  any  other  book 
of  Ewald  has  the  last  word  of  criticism  been  spoken, 
his  very  freshly  written  first  edition  marks  a  real  step 
in  the  explanation  of  the  Song. 

1  Ssujismus  s.  theosophia  Pcrsarum  pantheistica,  1821.    Comp. 
Vaughan's  Hours  with  the  Mystics,  vol.  ii. 

-  Ewald's   scheme   of  the   poem   is   given,  with  some  slight 
modifications,  in  Dr.  Driver's  Introduction,  pp.  413 — 416. 

G 


82      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD  TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

All  this  was  most  creditable  work,  but  not  enough 
for  an  aspirant  to  the  chair  of  Eichhorn.  There  was 
an  older  scholar  who  had  strong  claims  on  the 
appointment,  himself  an  old  pupil  of  Eichhorn — need 
I  mention  Gesenius?1  The  too  general  and  aesthetic 
treatment  of  the  Old  Testament,  introduced  by 
Herder,  was  profoundly  repugnant  to  this  somewhat 
dry  commentator,  but  most  accomplished  master  of 
the  Semitic  languages.  Herder  was  for  soaring  into 
the  infinite  ;  Gesenius  was  perfectly  satisfied  with  the 
finite.  Ewald  had  in  his  nature  something  of  both, 
reminding  us  of  those  lines  of  Goethe  : 

Willst  du  in's  Unendliche  schreiten, 
Geh  nur  in's  Endliche  nach  alien  Seiten. 

Ewald  might  well  expect  that  the  chair  of  Eichhorn 
would  be  offered,  as  in  point  of  fact  it  was  in  the  first 
instance,  to  Gesenius,  but  he  would  also  seek  to 
strengthen  his  own  claims  by  competing  with  that 
scholar  on  his  own  ground.  Great  as  were  the  merits 
of  Gesenius's  Hebrew  Grammar,  or  rather  grammars, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  learner — their  clearness 
and  simplicity,  in  fact,  left  nothing  to  be  wished — 
there  was  still  a  demand  for  a  grammar  more  in- 
dependent in  its  relation  to  the  older  systems,  more 
philosophic  in  its  explanations,  more  in  harmony 
with  the  scientific  principles  of  Franz  Bopp  and  his 
distinguished  colleagues.  As  an  English  friend  and 
pupil   of  Ewald    said  in   1835,  "The  elements  of  a 

1  See  p.  55= 


EWALD.  S3 

further  development  of  Hebrew  grammar  were  already 
ripening  in  silence  ;  but  the  honour  of  effecting  the 
reformation  was  reserved  for  Prof.  Ewald." l  The 
Kritische  Grammatik  (1827)  at  once  drew  all  eyes 
upon  its  author,  and  it  may  safely  be  said  that  with 
this  book  in  his  hand  he  won  his  professorship. 
Gesenius  himself  had  no  mean  jealousy  of  his  young 
rival ;  he  was  even  in  the  habit  of  sending  his  most 
promising  pupils  to  Gottingen  to  complete  their 
studies  under  Ewald,  who,  he  said,  was  "  ein  exquisitcr 
Hebraer,  auch  ein  selten  gelehrter  Araber."2  In 
1828,  hungry  for  fresh  distinction,  Ewald  actually 
brought  out  a  second  Hebrew  grammar,  "in  voll- 
standiger  Kiirzc  bearbeitet,"  which  appeared  in  1835 
in  a  second  edition,  thoroughly  revised,  as  the  preface 
states,  and  greatly  improved.  The  most'  important 
addition  consists  of  a  treatise  on  the  accents,  based 
upon  a  previous  essay  of  Ewald's  published  in  1832 
in  his  AbJiandlungcn  zur  Oriental,  u.  Bibl.  Litteratur 
(part  I  ;  a  second  part  was  never  issued),  in  which 
the  relationship  of  the  Hebrew  to  the  simpler  Syriac 
accentuation  is  pointed  out.  Throughout  his  life 
Ewald  continued  to  improve  his  grammar,  to  which 
in  1844  he  gave  the  title  AusfiiJirlicJics  Lchrbucli  der 
hebrdischen  Spracfie  des  Altai  Testaments.  The 
earlier  editions  are  however  of  much  historical  interest, 

1  Preface   to   the    English    translation   of    Ewald's    Hebrcu- 
Grammar,  by  John  Nicholson  (Lond.  1836),  p.  xi. 

2  See   the  sketches  of  Hitzig  and   Yatke,  and  cf.  Benecke, 
Wilhelm  Vatke,  p.  27. 


84      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

and  a  few  passages  from  the  preface  to  Ewald's  second 
Hebrew  Grammar  may  be  quoted,  as  illustrative  not 
only  of  the  views  of  the  author,  but  of  his  modesty  at 
this  point  of  his  career.  He  is  speaking  of  the  new 
period  in  the  study  of  Hebrew  grammar.  "  I  myself 
may  have  only  the  merit  of  the  first  impulse  to  im- 
provement, if  even  that  may  be  called  a  merit,  since 
the  idea  of  an  improvement  in  this  science  is  less 
owing  to  me  than  the  claims  of  our  time,  and  this  idea 
has  perhaps  only  been  awakened  somewhat  sooner 
and  more  vividly  in  me.  Even  after  the  firmer  form 
which  I  have  been  able  to  give  the  Hebrew  grammar 
in  this  new  work,  there  nevertheless  remains,  as  I 
partly  confidently  believe  and  partly  suspect,  much 
for  future  inquirers,  or,  perhaps,  for  myself  to  add  or 
to  define  more  strictly,  not  only  in  the  syntax,  which 
follows  logical  laws  and  is  therefore  more  easily 
thoroughly  understood  by  a  consistent  thinker,  but 
also  in  the  doctrine  of  the  sounds  of  the  language."  x 

It  is  not,  I  think,  superfluous  in  England  to  lay 
stress  on  the  services  of  Gesenius  and  Ewald  (but 
especially  of  Ewald)  to  Hebrew  grammar.  Quite 
recently  an  English  bishop,  addressing  the  clergy  of 
his  diocese,  declined  to  recognize  the  supposed 
results  of  "  higher  criticism  "  until  it  could  be  shown 
that  the  Hebrew  language  was  much  better  under- 
stood in  our  day  than  in  the  time  of  Ainsworth  and 
Broughton.2     And  it  is  precisely  from  the  want  of  a 

1  Nicholson's  translation  (see  above),  p.  xii. 

2  Dr.  Ryle,  Guardian,  Oct.  26,  1892. 


EWALD.  85 

philological  exegesis  such  as  Ewald  and  others  have 
founded  that  our  popular  commentaries  on  the  Old 
Testament  are  in  many  respects  so  misleading.  The 
late  Dr.  Pusey  at  any  rate  thought  differently  from 
Bishop  Ellicott.  He  cordially  admitted1  the  "philo- 
sophical acuteness "  with  which  "  as  a  youth  of 
nineteen  (?  twenty-four)  he  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
scientific  treatment  of  Hebrew  grammar,"  though  I 
cannot  see  that  in  his  own  commentaries  he  made 
the  most  of  Ewald's  grammatical  principles.  This  is 
not  the  place  to  estimate  with  precision  the  services 
of  Ewald  as  a  grammarian.  The  very  interesting 
preface  of  Dr.  John  Nicholson  to  his  translation  of 
the  second  edition  of  the  Grammatik,  well  describes 
some  of  the  most  valuable  characteristics  of  the  book, 
and  the  impression  which  they  produced  on  acute  and 
well-prepared  students  like  himself.  Other  schools 
of  grammarians  have  arisen  since  Ewald's  time,  and 
his  successors  can  certainly  not  afford  to  imitate  him 
in  what  Konig  calls  the  style  of  assertion.  Much 
that  Ewald  in  his  later  years  considered  himself  to  have 
settled,  has  now  become  very  properly  a  subject  of 
debate.  But  the  stimulus  which  he  has  given  to  the 
study  of  Hebrew  grammar  is  immense,  and  a  general 
indebtedness,  visible  in  most  if  not  all  of  his  successors, 
is  quite  consistent  with  many  differences  on  points  of 
detail.  I  need  not  say  more  on  this  subject,  because 
my  friend,  Prof.  Driver,  has  given  the  best  illustration 

1  The  Minor  Prophets  (Oxf.  1S79),  p.  iii. 


86      FOUNDERS   OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

of  what  I  have  been  urging  in  his  beautiful  text-book 
on  the  Hebrew  tenses. 

Ewald  has  sometimes  been  reproached  with  being 
too  theological.  But  his  interest  in  grammar  at  any 
rate  was  purely  disinterested.  He  loved  it  for  its  own 
sake,  as  the  most  wonderful  product  of  the  human 
faculties.  To  Arabic  grammar  he  devoted  himself  at 
first  with  almost  as  much  zeal  as  to  Hebrew  grammar  ; 
and  the  pages  of  his  linguistic  works  *  testify  to  his 
keen  interest  in  the  most  outlying  languages,  from 
which  indeed  he  often  drew  illustrations  for  Hebrew. 
The  composition  of  his  Arabic  Grammar  (vol.  i.  1831  ; 
vol.  ii.  1833)  falls  between  the  first  and  second  editions 
of  the  second  or  smaller  Hebrew  grammars,  and 
must  have  contributed  greatly  to  the  improvement  of 
the  latter  work.  The  book  is  written  in  very  clumsy 
Latin,  but  contains  much  interesting  matter  for  a 
Hebraist  or  a  comparative  philologist,  its  object  being 
not  merely  to  register  phenomena,  but  to  give  simple 
and  consistent  explanations. 

The  author  never  had  leisure  for  a  second  edition, 
in  which  perhaps  he  would  have  given  more  detailed 
criticism  of  the  Arabic  grammarians.  Writing  the 
book  was  a  recreation.  From  Arabic  grammar,  from 
the  Mtiallaqdt  and  the  Qtir'an,  he  returned  with 
renewed  energies  to  Hebrew  grammar,  to  the  psalmists 
and  the  prophets  of  the  Bible. 

I  speak  of  this  as  a  return,  for  you  will  remember 

1  See  especially  the  two  first  of  his  Sprachwissenschaft- 
lichen  Abhandlimgen,  1861-62. 


l.WALD. 

that  Ewald  is  already  well  known  to  Biblical  scholars. 
Both  on  Hebrew  grammar  and  on  Hebrew  poetry  he 
has  published  results  which  have  been  found  worth 
hearing.  A  grand  ideal  beckons  him  onward,  but  he 
has  the  self-restraint  to  listen  to  the  warnings  of  an 
inner  voice,  which  bids  him  proceed  slowly,  oJuic  Hast 
oJuic  Rast,  trusting  that  God  will  grant  him  time 
enough  to  finish  his  work.  In  1826  he  began  the 
investigation  of  the  poetical  books;  in  1835  he 
resumes  this  by  the  publication  of  a  book  on  the 
Psalms,  which  is  followed  in  1836  by  Job,  and  in  1837 
by  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes.  These  volumes  form 
parts  2 — 4  of  a  series  called  Die  poetisclicn  Biiclicr  des 
Altai  Bundcs  ;  the  first  part,  containing  introductory 
matter  on  Hebrew  poetry  in  general  and  on  the  Book 
of  Psalms  in  particular,  did  not  appear  till  1839.  He 
takes,  you  see,  a  different  line  from  that  recommended 
by  Abraham  Kuenen.  He  thinks  it  safest  to  begin 
his  Old  Testament  researches,  not  with  the  prophets, 
but  with  the  poets,  as  bringing  us  nearer  to  the  primi- 
tive spiritual  forces  at  work  amidst  the  people  of 
Israel.  Thus  he  hopes  to  gain  a  vantage-point  for 
comprehending  as  well  the  far  loftier  speech  of  the 
prophets,  as  the  recollections  of  the  spiritual  movement 
(using  the  word  "  spiritual  "  in  a  wide  sense)  of  Israel's 
bygone  times  recorded  in  the  historical  books.1    There 

1  See  p.  vi.  of  "  Vorrede  "  to  Die poetischen  Biicher.  Compare 
Ewald's  view  of  the  right  plan  for  those  who  would  read  the 
Bible  for  instruction,  Die  Lehre  der  Bibel  von  Gott,  i.  465-66. 
Here  again  note  Ewald's  consistency  from  youth  to  age. 


SS      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

is  something  to  be  said  for  this  plan.     That  peculiar 
spiritual  state  which  we  call  inspiration  is  less  dis- 
tinctly visible  in  the  poetical  than  in  the  prophetical 
books ;    not   less    truly,    but    less    distinctly    visible ; 
and    it    is   perhaps   a   good    exercise   to    study   this 
phenomenon    first    of   all    as    displayed    upon    the 
frankly  human  and  popular  groundwork  of  poetical 
compositions.      The    only    danger    is    that    such   a 
course  is  liable  to  prejudice  the  investigator  unduly 
in  favour  of  an  early  date  for  the  poetical  books  ;  for 
if  these  books  are  very  late,  they  seem  to  become  a 
mere  reflection  of  prophecy,  assort  of  substitute  for  the 
living   oracle.     It  was,  at  any   rate,  very    unwise  of 
Ewald   to  hamper  his   future  course  as  a  critic   by 
venturing  thus  early  on  a  chronological  rearrangement 
of  the  Psalms.     It  is  however,  in  my  opinion,  much  to 
his  credit  that  he  recognizes  so  fully  a  large  captivity 
and  post-captivity  element  in  the  Psalter.    In  fact,  he 
stands  aloof  both  from  the  extreme  conservative  and 
from  the  extreme  liberal  party,  and  foreshadows  that 
via  media  for  which  the  progressive  conservatism  of 
our  day  so  ardently  longs.     The  fault  of  the  book  is 
of  course  its  fragmentariness.     But  as  a  supplement 
to  other  works,  it  still  has  its  use.     Ewald's  view  of 
the  connexion  of  thought  in  the   Psalms  is  always 
worth  considering,  and  his  emotional  sympathy  with 
the  psalmists  is  altogether  unique. 

But  I  think  that  his  book  on  Job  is,  if  not  greater, 
yet  more  complete  and  freer  from  faults.  If  we  look 
at  the  translation,  how  many   brilliant  examples  of 


EWALD.  89 

grammatical  tact  occur  to  us  !  while  the  commentary 
shows  equal  skill  in  tracing  out  the  often  subtle 
connexions  between  the  speeches.  The  introduction 
is  brimful  of  insight,  and  stimulates  even  where  it 
fails  to  convince,  and  Ewald's  "  higher  criticism  "  is 
here,  I  think,  for  once  final  and  authoritative.  The 
study  of  the  wonderful  character-drama  of  Job  has,  I 
trust,  a  great  future  before  it,  but  only  on  condition  of 
our  starting  from  the  point  where  Ewald  has  left  it. 
I  cannot  stop  to  speak  of  his  Proverbs  and  Ecclesi- 
astes — works  less  fruitful,  as  it  seems  to  me,  in 
suggestions  of  permanent  value  ;  and  of  the  opening 
volume  of  the  series  I  can  only  give  the  general  verdict 
of  Biblical  scholars,  that,  putting  aside  the  meagre 
pages  on  the  Psalms,  strange  to  say,  the  only  part 
accessible  in  English,1  it  is  one  of  Ewald's  most 
original  and  satisfactory  works. 

But  now  to  return  to  the  personal  history  of  the 
author.  We  have  seen  him  in  his  greatness  ;  we  are 
soon  to  sympathize  with  him  in  his  trials  and  in- 
firmities. He  has  had  the  discipline  of  prosperity, 
but  has  shown  a  strong  imaginative  sympathy  with 
those  in  the  depths  of  affliction.  The  Book  of  the  Trial 
of  the  Righteous  One  has  found  in  him  a  congenial 
interpreter  ;  soon  the  question  of  the  poem  is  to  come 
back  to  him  with  a  personal  application,  "  Dost  thou 
serve  God  for  nought  ?  "     Looking  back  on  this  early 

1  Dr.  Nicholson's  translation  of  the  general  introductory 
portion  is  buried  in  the  Old  Scries  of  the  Journal  of  Sacred 
Literature. 


90      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

period,  Ewald  was  in  the  habit  of  idealizing  it,  just 
as  the  patriarch  idealized  the  "  months  of  old  "  in  that 
most  touching  elegiac  retrospect,  the  29th  chapter  of 
Job.  Still  there  is  no  doubt  that  Ewald  was  more 
firmly  rooted  in  Gottingen,  and  his  relations  with 
scholars  both  in  and  out  of  Gottingen  more  agreeable 
at  this  time  than  afterwards.  A  truly  noble  band  of 
professors,  especially  historical  professors,  illustrated 
the  Georgia  Augusta.  There  was  Liicke  the  com- 
mentator and  Church-historian,  Gieseler  the  Church- 
historian,  Dahlmann  the  historian  of  Greece,  Ritter 
the  historian  of  philosophy,  Gervinus  the  historian 
of  literature,  Otfried  Muller  the  archaeologist,  Jakob 
Grimm  the  Germanist ;  among  others  may  be  added 
the  two  friends,  Weber  the  great  electrician  and  Gauss 
the  celebrated  mathematician,  the  latter  of  whom  in 
1830  became  Ewald's  father-in-law.  None  of  these 
was  more  distinguished  than  Heinrich  Ewald. 
Honours  crowded  upon  him  ;  he  had  large  classes, 
attracted  by  his  enthusiasm  and  his  thoroughness,  and 
exercised  a  wide  and  salutary  influence  on  the  critical 
movement. 

True,  there  was  already  a  root  of  bitterness  in  his 
self-concentration.  That  same  spiritual  "  recluseness  " 
which,  in  the  words  of  Edward  Irving,  led  "  that  soul 
of  every  excellence,  the  glorious  Milton,"  into  "  the 
greatest  of  all  intolerance,"  l  was  the  bane  of  Ewald. 
He  had  a  noble  and  unselfish  ambition,  but  he  had  it 

1  Miscellct7iies from  the  Writings  of  Irving,  p.  153. 


EWALD.  91 

too  absorbingly.  It  bade  him  "  separate  himself  "  from 
his  kind  and  "  intermeddle  with  all  wisdom,"  1  for- 
getting that  more  than  one  prophet  is  wanted  to 
accomplish  a  Divine  purpose,  and  that  he  himself,  no 
less  than  Eichhorn,  needed  the  support  of  independent 
fellow-workers.  At  first  there  was  only  a  vague 
danger  that  a  naive  self-confidence  might  develop  into 
a  tormenting  intolerance.  His  expressions  of  feeling 
were  too  childlike  to  irritate,  and  as  yet  he  left  the 
world  and  its  rulers  to  take  care  of  themselves.2  In 
1S36  however  there  are  indications  of  a  change;  the 
conclusion  of  the  fourth  part  of  Die poctiscJicn  BiicJicr 
contains,  among  much  very  interesting  matter,  full  of 
rude  but  striking  eloquence,  a  painful  attack  on  that 
sweet-natured,  conscientious,  and  gifted  scholar,  De 
Wette.  Ewald  had,  it  seems,  been  spending  a  holiday 
in  Italy,  but  it  was  a  holiday  against  his  will  ;  his 
mind  preyed  upon  itself,  and  even  the  historical 
treasures  of  the  Eternal  City  gave  out  no  balm  for  his 
wounded  spirit.  Ancient  art  scarcely  speaks  to  him  ; 
he  writes  epigrams  in  verse,3  breathing  a  Luther-like 
scorn  of  the  Romans  and  their  Church,  and  of  those 
who,  tempted  by  false  promises,  have  become  converts 
to  Rome.  Except  where  his  faith  darts  upwards,  as 
for  instance  in  the  last  lines,  which  remind  us  of 
Arthur    Clough's    "  Say    not    the    struggle    nought 

1  Prov.  xviii.  1,  A.  V.     I  need  not  criticize  the  translation. 
-  "  Ich  schrieb  dort  mit  leichtem  urn  die  Welt  bekummertem 
Sinne"  {Die poet.  Ditcher  des  A.  D.,  Bd.  i.  "  Vorrede,"  S.  viii.). 
3  "  Mussestunden  in  Italien,"  Ibid.  iv.  231 — 246. 


92      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

availeth,"  his  pen  is  dipped  in  gall,  and  he  seeks  a 
much-needed  excuse  in  some  wrong  which  has  been 
done  him  at  home.  I  cannot  myself  understand  his 
obscure  allusion  to  a  "  speech  of  tyrannous  cruelty," 
but  certain  it  is  that  in  the  following  year  a  grievous 
wrong  did  befall  him,  which  threatened  for  an  inde- 
finite period  to  thrust  into  idleness — "in  thatenlose 
Musse  zu  versetzen  " — one  whose  spirit  was  wholly 
academical,  and  who  viewed  with  perfect  justice  even 
his  authorship  as  an  outgrowth  of  his  professional 
position.  In  1833,  as  a  consequence  of  the  attempted 
revolution  of  1831,  King  William  gave  his  sanction  to 
a  Staatsgrundgesetz  or  Constitutional  Statute  ;  in  1837 
King  Ernest  Augustus  signalized  his  accession  to  the 
throne  by  refusing  to  recognize  this  as  binding.  It 
was  an  event  which  deeply  stirred  academic  society, 
and  not  to  Otfried  Miiller  alone  may  these  words  of  a 
scholar-poet  be  applied  : 

Und  als  der  Donner  ziirnend  eingeschlagen, 

Wer  hat  den  Muth  mit  tapferm  Wort  erregt, 

Dem  Manneswort  :  "  So  wir  uns  selbst  nicht  fehlen, 

Wie  mag  uns  Furcht  vor  Drang  und  Unbill  qualen  ? " 1 

But  what  could  academical  teachers  do,  knights  of  the 
pen  and  not  of  the  sword  ?  Seven  at  any  rate  found 
their  duty  clear  ;  they  addressed  a  solemn  protest  to 
the  curators  of  the  university  at  Hanover.  Their 
names  deserve  to  be  chronicled  ;  Dahlmann  was  the 
leader,  the  others  were   the  two  Grimms,  Gervinus, 

1  From  a  memorial  poem  on  Karl  Otfried  Miiller,  by  Dr. 
Ellissen,  Hellenist  and  Liberal  politician. 


EWALD.  93 

Weber,  Albrccht,  and  the  subject  of  this  sketch.  The 
consequences  were  serious  for  themselves,  for  in 
December  of  the  same  year  they  were  all  dismissed 
from  their  office.  Upon  Ewald,  not  merely  a  patriot, 
but  essentially  a  provincial,  the  blow  fell  with  double 
force.  No  exile  ever  felt  his  banishment  more.  For 
the  moment  he  found  occupation  in  the  English 
libraries;1  but  it  seemed  at  first  as  if  the  Guelphic 
ban  were  to  exclude  him  and  his  friends  from 
academical  office  anywhere.  Fortunately  indeed  such 
fears  were  groundless  ;  the  reputation  of  the  seven 
professors  was  as  much  enhanced  by  a  protest  against 
arbitrary  power  as  that  of  our  own  seven  bishops,  and 
Ewald  was  the  first  to  receive  an  appointment. 

Ewald's  call  to  Tubingen  in  183S  opens  a  fresh 
chapter  in  his  history  ;  it  brought  him,  we  must  add, 
face  to  face  with  his  second  great  trial.  Would  the 
recluse  scholar  be  enriched  or  impoverished  by  trans- 
plantation ?  Would  he  catch  something  of  the 
characteristic  warmth  of  Wurtemberg  religious  life, 
and  communicate  in  return  that  earnestness  and 
questioning  reasonableness  which  he  had  inherited 
from  his  fathers?  And  looking  to  his  new  university 
relations,  would  the  man  who  could  so  well  give  their 
due  to  the  different  types  of  teaching  in  the  Bible  show 
equal  flexibility  in  dealing  with  a  colleague  so  unlike 

1  This  is  strictly  accurate.  Blenheim  could  not  tempt  him 
from  the  Bodleian.  Some  of  his  Oxford  acquisitions  are  to  be 
found  in  vol.  i.  of  Beitr&ge  cur  altesten  AusUgung  des  A.  7'.,  by 
Ewald  and  Dukes  (Stuttgart,  1S44). 


94      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

himself  as  Ferdinand  C.  Baur?  It  was  a  difficult 
position  for  Ewald.  Even  Karl  Hase,  as  he  has  told 
us  in  his  charming  autobiography,  found  it  a  work  of 
time  to  get  thoroughly  naturalized  in  Schwabenland. 
One  so  awkward  as  Ewald  in  social  intercourse,  and 
so  conscious  of  his  own  merits,  could  not  but  experi- 
ence in  some  respects  even  greater  hindrances  than 
Hase.  He  was  thus  thrown  back  more  than  ever  on 
himself,  and  his  old  infirmities  gathered  such  a  head 
that  they  made  life  a  burden  both  to  himself  and  to 
others.  He  had  even  before  1837  begun  to  express 
himself  with  unjustifiable  positiveness  on  the  errors  of 
contemporary  theologians,  not  indeed  as  a  rule 
mentioning  their  names  ;  but  after  that  date  things 
went  from  worse  to  worse.  The  fundamental  differ- 
ences between  himself  and  Baur  seemed  to  him  to 
demand  an  ever-renewed  protest  on  his  part.1  I  need 
not  say  how  painful  such  a  feud  between  colleagues 
must  have  been,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that,  even  more 
than  in  the  case  of  Ewald's  quarrel  with  Gesenius,  the 
fault  was  on  Ewald's  side.  But  indeed  no  one  was 
safe  from  this  self-appointed  censor.  The  English 
nation  came  off  best ;  but  our  own  Pusey,  who  never 
retaliated  on  Ewald,  had  the  fortune  to  be  joined  with 
Hengstenberg  and  Delitzsch  in  the  same  unqualified 
condemnation.  To  Ewald,  as  a  political  martyr, 
political  errors,  too,  were  now  equally  obnoxious  with 
theological.     With  unmeasured  violence,  but  without 

1  Contrast  the  respectful  language  of  Dorner  and  Ullmann  to 
Baur  at  this  same  period. 


EWALD.  95 

any  of  that  wit  which  redeems  the  violence  of  great 
satirists,  he  chastised  by  turns  most  of  "  the  powers 
that  be,"  and  when  no  notice  was  taken,  it  was  a  proof 
to  him  that  he  was  in  the  right.  Alas  for  a  true 
prophet  who  mistook  his  functions,  to  the  injury 
not  only  of  his  own  fame,  but  of  the  truth  which  it 
was  his  privilege  to  make  known  !  Alas,  that  instead 
of  gratefully  learning  wherever  he  could,  and  appre- 
ciating high  moral  purpose,  when  he  could  do  no  more, 
he  at  once  rejected  all  but  his  own  results,  and  imputed 
intellectual  divergences  to  moral  defects  !  "  Woe  to 
that  study,"  says  the  gentle  Spenser's  too  fiery  friend, 
Gabriel  Harvey,  "that  misspendeth  pretious  Time,  and 
consumeth  itself  in  needlesse  and  bootlcsse  quarrels."  ! 
For  Ewald's  "  railing  accusations  "  were  fully  avenged 
on  Ewald  himself.  Had  he  but  taken  his  proper  place 
as  an  honoured  member  of  Truth's  household,  how 
much  more  would  he  have  effected,  and  how  much 
more  easily  could  we  estimate  the  comparative  value 
of  his  work  !  - 

I  have  omitted  as  yet  to  mention  one  great  blow 
which  befell  Ewald,  too  great  to  be  referred  to  in  the 
middle  of  a  paragraph.     It  removed  from  his  side  the 

1  Foure  Letters,  and '  certaine  Sonnets,  etc.  (1592),  p.  27. 

2  The  controversial  treatises  of  Carl  Wex  and  August  Knobel 
may  be  here  mentioned,  the  one  entitled  Herr  Prof.  Ewald  als 
Punier  gewiirdigt  (1843),  tnc  other  Exegetisches   Vademecum 

fiir  Herr  Prof.  Ewald  ( 1844).  Literature  of  this  kind  justifies 
the  remark  of  a  French-Swiss  scholar,  "  Les  philologues 
allcmands  du  xix"10  siecle  ont  souvent  le  temperament  aussi 
batailleur  et  la  critique  aussi  apre  que  les  erudits  de  la  Renais- 
sance "  (Pref.  to  Pictet's  Les  origines  indo-europcennes). 


g6      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

one  softening  influence  which  remained  to  him  in  his 
banishment.     In   1840  his  wife  died,  a  more  serious 
loss  to  him,  as  he  himself  says,  than  any  of  which 
his  foes  had  been   the  cause.     His  only  comfort  was 
in  high  ideas,  and  he  became  more  and  more  sensitive 
to  any  supposed    disparagement  of  them.     He  had 
quenched  his  burning  thirst  for  religious  truth  at  the 
fountain    of    the   Bible,    and    it   both   grieved x   and 
angered  him  when  some  critic  of  large  gifts  misused 
them,  as  he  thought,  to  the  detriment  of  the  Bible 
— that  is,  of  Ewald's  opinions  about  the  Bible.     It  is 
true  that  the  grief  in  Ewald's  mind  was  too  commonly 
overpowered  by  the  indignation.      But,  we  may  ask, 
have  there  been    no  instances  of  this   confusion  of 
truth   with   opinion,   and   of   intellectual   error   with 
moral  obliquity  among  critics  of  another  school  and 
divines  of  another  Church  ?     If  I  had  a  right  to  be 
intolerant   of   the   intolerant,    I    would   quote   those 
words  of  the  ancient  seer  : 

O  my  soul,  come  not  thou  into  their  council ; 

Unto  their  assembly,  O  my  glory,  be  not  thou  united.2 

In  Ewald's  case,  however,  this  inability  to  do  justice 
to  other  workers  detracts  in  only  a  slight  degree  from 
the  comfort  of  the  reader,  for  as  a  rule  he  confines 
controversial  allusions  to  his  prefaces.     None  of  his 

1  "  Ich  mochte  vergehen  vor  Schmerz,  sehend  dass  ein  so 
armseliger  Zustand  von  Exegese  von  Mannern  fortgesetzt  wird, 
welche  vielleicht  Bes seres  leisten  konnten  "  (Die  poet.  Bilcher% 
iv.  (1837),  p.  253).  2  Gen.  xlix.  6. 


i:\vald.  97 

writings  is  more  bathed  in  the  peace  and  sanctity  of 
the  spiritual  world  than  the  two  volumes  on  the 
Prophets,  which  appeared  in  the  opening  years  of  the 
bitter  Tubingen  period.  What  can  I  say  that  would 
be  sufficient  of  this  grand  work,  the  treasures  of 
which  are  still  far  from  exhausted,  and  which,  as  a 
specimen  of  exegesis,  has  extorted  the  admiration  of 
a  critic  who  so  much  dislikes  Ewald's  bclievingness 
as  Eduard  Meyer  ?  l  Full  and  free  as  is  my  own 
appreciation  of  other  "  founders  of  criticism,"  I  can- 
not help  noticing  in  Ewald's  Die  Prophctcn  a  power 
of  sympathetically  reproducing  primitive  experiences, 
NacJiempfinden,  as  the  Germans  call  it,  in  which  his 
teacher  Eichhorn  and  most  of  his  contemporaries  and 
successors  are  sadly  deficient,  and  which- 1  ascribe 
partly  to  Ewald's  possession  of  a  deep  spiritual  theistic 
religion,  uncoloured  and  undistorted  by  non-Semitic 
formulae,  partly  to  that  peculiar  personal  experience 
which  I  have  ventured  to  call,  by  analogy,  prophetic. 
The  first  edition  of  the  work  appeared  in  1840  and 
1 841  ;  the  second  only  in  1867 — an  instance  of 
self-restraint  and  noble  dissatisfaction  which  may 
mitigate  our  disapproval  of  the  author's  dogmatism. 
"  Not  as  though  I  had  attained,"  he  seems  to  say, 
"either  were  already  perfected."  The  two  editions 
deserve  to  be  compared  ;  philologically,  I  am  not 
sure  that  all  Ewald's  corrections  are  improvements  ; 
though  the  study  of  the  higher  criticism  is  in  some 

1  Gcscliiclitc  des  Alterthums,  i.  (1884),  p.  204. 

II 


98      FOUNDERS  OF  OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

respects  advanced  by  the  new  edition.  But  let  all 
theological  students,  however  strong  their  prejudices 
against  the  critical  analysis  of  ancient  texts,  read, 
mark,  learn,  and  inwardly  digest  that  noble  intro- 
duction which,  by  what  might  seem  a  miracle,  deals 
even-handed  justice  both  to  rational  criticism  and  to 
the  realities  of  faith. 


CHAPTER   V. 

EWALD  (2).— HIS   WEAKNESS   AND    HIS    STRENGTH, 
AS  A  CRITIC   AND   AS  A  MAN. 

COULD  that  true  prophet  who  saw  Israel's  past  so 
much  more  clearly  than  his  own  life  or  his  own  time, 
have  looked  back  with  purged  eyes  on  this  point  of 
his  career,  he  might  have  taken  up  the  words  of  a 
poet-prophet  who  went  before  him  :  "  Midway  the 
journey  of  our  life,  I  found  myself  in  a  dark  forest  ; 
for  the  straight  way  was  lost."  Short  though  sharp 
was  his  mental  agony,  and  then,  like  Dante,  he  saw 
the  hill  close  by  with  its  shining  summit,  for  which 
all  his  life  through  he  had  been  making.  And  as  he 
"took  his  way  on  the  desert  strand," — for  who  was 
there  that  rightly  shared  his  aim  ? — and  was  now  at 
the  point  to  climb,  three  cruel  forms  appeared  from 
the  recesses  of  the  wood,  seeking  to  "  drive  him  back 
to  where  the  sun  was  mute."  That  is  to  say,  arbitrary 
political  power,  blind  theological  conservatism,  and 
recklessly  destructive  criticism,  were  agreed,  as  Ewald 
thought,  in  fearing  and  in  seeking  to  oppose  the 
regeneration  of   Old  Testament  studies.     The  story 


100      FOUNDERS  OF  OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

of  Ewald's  mistakes  and  half-mistakes  is  not  on  the 
outside  indeed  as  poetic,  but  quite  as  tragic,  as  that 
of  Dante's,  and  no  one  will  form  a  right  judgment  of 
it  unless  he  recognizes,  first,  that  from  Ewald's  point 
of  view  his  apprehensions  were  justified,  and  next, 
that,  however  we  may  blame  his  arrogance  towards 
man,  we  must  admire  and  reverence  his  constant 
sense  of  dependence  on  God.  The  one  was  the 
source  of  his  weakness ;  the  other,  of  his  strength. 
But  for  his  faith  and  his  unworldliness,  he  could  not, 
even  with  his  great  talents,  have  done  as  much  and 
seen  as  clearly  as  he  did.  He  was  his  own  worst 
enemy ;  he  would  have  attained,  even  as  a  scholar, 
more  uniformly  substantial  results,  had  he  worked 
more  in  concert  with  others.  But  his  fidelity  to  the 
voice  within  was  absolute,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that 
when  he  says  that  he  will  joyfully  recant  his  whole 
system,  if  "  a  man  of  insight  and  of  conscience  "  can 
prove  it  to  be  necessary,  his  profession  is  an  honest 
one.  But  observe  the  qualification,  "  insight  and — 
conscience?  He  is  not  only  a  born  critic,  but  a  born 
"apologist";  in  one  place  he  candidly  says  that 
though  "  Apologete  "  is  a  "  Tubingischer  Schimpf- 
name,"  he  will  accept  the  description.  Ewald  cannot 
tolerate  in  Biblical  matters  a  perfectly  dry  criticism. 
In  all  his  work  upon  the  Old  Testament  he  is  partly 
thinking  of  the  New,  which  he  regards,  too  completely 
even  for  some  orthodox  critics,  as  the  crown  and 
climax  of  the  Old.  He  cannot  admit  the  usual 
division  of  the  field  of  exegesis  between  professors  of 


EWALD.  101 

the  Old  and  professors  of  the   New  Testament.     He 

must   himself  have   a   hand    in    the    development  of 

New  Testament  studies,  not  (as  has  been  sometimes 

said)  in  opposition  to  Baur  and   Strauss,  but  because 

to  him  the  New  Testament  forms  the  second  part  of 

the  record  of  Israel's  revelation.     This  can  be  proved, 

I  think,  by  chronology.     As  long  ago  as   1828,  before 

Baur  had  begun  to  touch  the  New  Testament,  Ewald 

published   a  Latin  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse. 

This  work  is  at  any  rate  more  solid  and  significant 

than  that  of  his  old  master,  Eichhorn,and  contributed 

to   bring   about   that  sound   historical    interpretation 

now  so  generally  current.     Writing    it   was  Ewald's 

recreation  amidst  the  serious  linguistic  studies  which 

preceded    his     Hebrew    Grammar :    "  unter    hundert 

Bedrangnissen   jener    Jahre   wie    in    eiligen    Neben- 

stunden  verfasst."     But  not  all  the  brilliant  successes 

of  F.  C.  Baur  as  an  author  and  as  a  teacher  could 

tempt  his  self-centred  colleague  to  compete  with  him 

on  the  field  of  the  New  Testament.     In   1850  Ewald 

did  indeed  break  through  the  appointed  order  of  his 

works,  and  express  himself  on  the  three  first  Gospels  ; 

the  book  appeared  in  a  second  edition,  which  included 

the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  1871.    But  though  its  first 

appearance  was  opportune    from   the  point  of  view 

of  u  apologetic  "  criticism,   the   bias  of  Ewald   being 

distinctly  "  positive,"  i.e.  inclining  him  to  believe  that 

we  have  firm  ground  beneath  us  in  the  Gospels  in  a 

higher  degree  than   Baur  omld   admit,  it  was  neither 

Baur  nor  Strauss  who  forced  him,  almost,  as  he  says, 


102      FOUNDERS  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

against  his  will,1  to  anticipate  the  time  for  speaking 
his  mind  on  the  Gospels.  It  was  his  concern  for 
those  ideal  goods  which  Germany  seemed  to  him  to 
be  losing.  What  Ewald  dreaded,  was  the  spirit  of 
the  revolution,  and  the  chief  reason  why  he  so  dis- 
liked Baur  and  Strauss  was,  that  he  thought  their 
"  Tendenz"  revolutionary.  Not,  however,  till  1861  did 
he  touch  the  fourth  Gospel,  though  the  rejection  of 
the  traditional  authorship  of  this  Gospel  rifled,  as  he 
thought,  the  "  most  attractive"  product  of  the  whole 
Biblical  literature.  Here,  however,  too,  as  in  all 
Ewald's  works,  there  is  no  direct  controversial  element. 
No  one  hates  controversy  more  than  this  critic.  Nach- 
empfinden  (Ewald's  own  word)  was  his  motto  from 
the  first.  It  was  the  spell  with  which,  even  as  a 
youth,  he  conjured  the  monsters  of  extreme  criticism  ; 
and  though  later  on  he  somewhat  changed  his  mind 
as  to  friends  and  foes,  never  did  he  cease  to  insist 
upon  a  direct  relation  between  the  expositor  and  his 
author,  a  relation  so  close  and  sympathetic  as  to 
exclude  any  great  care  for  the  opinions  of  others. 
If  he  feared  radicalism  more  as  represented  by  Baur 
than  by  Vatke,  it  was  because  he  thought  that  there 
was  a  fatal,  however  undesigned,  connexion  between 
the  conclusions  of  Baur  and  those  of  his  too  brilliant 
friend,  David  F.  Strauss,  and  the  revolutionary  ex- 
cesses of  1848  ;  for  Vatke  seemed  sufficiently  guarded 
against,  as  well  by  his  heavy  style  and  by  the  slight 

1  Die  drei  ersteii  Evangelie?i,  "  Vorrede,"  S.  iii. 


ewald.  103 

echo  which  he  found  in  German  universities,  as  by 
those  general  warnings  given  by  our  arch-dogmatist, 
not  only  in  his  prefaces,  but,  as  it  seems,  also  in  his 
lectures.1  Once  begun,  there  was  no  intermission  in 
his  New  Testament  work.  The  Scndschvcibcn  des 
Apostels  Paulits  appeared  in  1857  ;  the  second  volume 
of  the  Johanneischen  Schriften  in  1862;  and  ten  years 
later  we  find  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  com- 
plete in  seven  volumes,  which,  in  spite  of  their  defi- 
ciencies, will  never  quite  lose  their  interest,  from  the 
peculiar  character  of  the  author,  and  from  the 
Hebraistic  eye  with  which,  even  when  writing  his  first 
Grammar,  he  regarded  the  New  Testament  writings. 

Thus,  while  fully  admitting  that  Ewald's  New 
Testament  work  lost  something  through  his  antipathy 
to  Baur,  I  am  bound  to  deny  that  it  was  in  any  sense 
inspired  by  that  too  vehement  feeling.  So  far  as  his 
researches  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels  had  any  contro- 
versial reference,  they  may  be  said  to  have  been  his 
answer  to  the  Revolution.  It  is  true  they  were  more 
than  this,  and  in  explaining  my  allusion,  I  resume 
the  thread  of  my  narrative.  The  publication  of  Die 
drci  crste?i  Evangelien  in  1850  was  a  sign  that  Ewald 
was  thoroughly  settled  again  in  his  old  university. 
Much  as  he  feared  and  hated  the  revolutionary  move- 
ment, he  had  at  least  to  thank  what  he  somewhere 
calls  the  shipwreck  year  for  bringing  him  back  to 
port.     Ill    at    ease,  both    on    public    and    on  private 

1  Benecke,  Wilhelm  Vat/cc,  p.  613.     In  1835,  however,  Ewald 
judged  more  favourably  of  Yatke's  book.     Ibid.,  pp.  168 — 175. 


104      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

grounds,  and  equally  unable  to  assimilate  the 
Biblical  mysticism  and  the  speculative  rationalism  of 
Tubingen,  he  had  resigned  his  post  in  the  great 
southern  theological  university.  The  senate  of  the 
Georgia  Augusta  supported  an  application  which  he 
himself  made  for  his  recall,  and  in  September,  1848, 
Ewald  resumed  his  old  position  at  Gottingen.  His 
reputation  as  a  scholar  had  certainly  not  diminished 
during  his  absence.  I  have  spoken  of  his  Die  Pro- 
pheten.  On  the  completion  of  this  work,  he  began 
one  of  much  wider  range,  the  greatest  of  all  the  great 
Gottingen  histories  ;  need  I  mention  the  Gescliichte 
des  Volkes  Israel?  On  two  grounds  this  work  is 
fitly  described  as  epoch-making.  It  is  in  the  highest 
degree  original ;  every  line  exhibits  a  fresh  and 
independent  mind,  and  mature  and  long-tested 
research.  It  is  also,  if  you  will  allow  the  expression, 
in  a  scarcely  less  degree,  unoriginal.  In  spite  of 
many  ideas  which  are  the  sole  property  of  the  author, 
it  sums  up  to  a  considerable  extent  the  investigations 
of  a  century,  and  closes  provisionally  that  great 
movement  which,  beginning  as  it  did  with  Lowth, 
ought  to  have  been  throughout  Anglo-continental. 
Twenty  years  hence,  when  the  next  great  history  of 
Israel  will  be  due,  may  we  venture  to  hope  for  a 
native  English  Ewald  ?  Great  is  our  need  of  him. 
The  old  Ewald  must  in  England  be  for  the  most 
part  the  teacher's  teacher  ;  peculiarities  of  style  and 
of  exposition,  not  unpleasing  to  those  who  are  in- 
terested in  the  author  personally,  are  real  hindrances 


EWALD.  105 

to  beginners.  The  new  Ewald  will  be  born  into  a 
world  which  is  not  so  academical  as  that  of  Heinrich 
Ewald.  He  must  be  free  at  all  costs  from  the  moral 
drawbacks  of  his  predecessor,  and  must  have  an 
English  as  well  as  a  German  training.  A  mere  wish 
will  not  bring  him  into  existence,  but  a  strong  enough 
wish  will  be  the  parent  of  action.  Unless  we  see  our 
goal,  we  shall  never  shake  off  our  guilty  torpor. 
Therefore — 

Flash  on  us,  all  in  armour,  thou  Achilles  ; 
Make  our  hearts  dance  to  thy  resounding  steps.1 

The  reader  will  pardon  this  abrupt  transition. 
The  memory  of  Lowth,  whose  books  made  no  epoch 
in  England,  but  kindled  a  flame  in  Germany,  pursues 
me,  and  doubtless  many  "of  the  younger  generation 
who  are  no  longer  repressed  by  a  needless  dread  of 
rationalism.  Now  to  return.  I  am  of  course  not 
asking  any  one  to  accept  Ewald  as  a  master.  There 
was  a  time  when  Ewald  was  in  some  quarters  almost 
an  unquestioned  potentate,  the  Ranke  of  Hebrew 
history.  I  have  no  wish  to  revive  the  belief  in  his 
infallibility.  Over  and  over  again  we  shall  have  to 
fight  with  him,  but  let  us  mind  that  we  do  so  in  his 
own  spirit  and  with  his  own  weapons.  Does  some 
one  ask,  What  is  Ewald's  spirit  ?  "  To  be  scientific  " 
— he  tells  us  himself — "  is  to  have  a  burning  desire 
to  push  on  more  and  more  towards  the  high  goal 
which  science  has  set  up,  and  to  come  from  certainty 

1  Browning.  Paracelsus, 


106      FOUNDERS   OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

to  certainty."1  But  the  goal  with  Ewald  is  the 
knowledge  of  a  self-revealing  God  ("they  go  from 
strength  to  strength,  and  appear  before  God  in 
Zion ") ;  Delitzsch  postulates  this,  Ewald  works 
towards  it.  And  if  the  question  be  added,  Which  are 
Ewald's  weapons  ? — I  reply  in  the  words  of  Niebuhr, 
"  History  has  two  means  by  which  it  supplies  the 
deficiencies  of  its  sources — criticism  and  divination." 
"  Both  are  arts,"  continues  this  great  historian,  "  which 
may  certainly  be  acquired  from  masters,  and  which  a 
man  must  himself  understand  before  he  can  judge  of 
their  productions."2  Niebuhr,  I  know,  is  superseded 
as  a  critic,  and  Ewald  is  in  course  of  being  superseded. 
But  the  man  who  finally  supersedes  him  will  only  do 
so  in  virtue  of  a  more  penetrating  criticism  and  a 
better  regulated  though  not  more  intense  divination. 
Lord  Acton,  in  the  Historical  Review  (No.  I,  p.  25), 
has  lately  said,  et  It  is  the  last  and  most  original  of 
[Ewald's]  disciples  .  .  .  who  has  set  in  motion  "  in 
Germany  the  new  Pentateuch  controversy,  and  Julius 
Wellhausen  himself  inscribes  his  now  famous  work, 
"To  my  unforgotten  teacher,  Heinrich  Ewald." 
Most  certainly,  this  eminent  critic  cannot  be  appre- 
ciated without  a  true  knowledge  of  the  influences 
which  formed  him.  In  one  sense  he  has  no  doubt 
broken  with  his  master.     He  has  identified  himself 

1  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  der  altesten  Auslegnng,  by  Ewald 
and  Dukes,  p.  xviii. 

2  "  Essay  on  the  Study  of  Antiquities,"  in  Niebuhr's  Life  and 
Letters ;  ii.  219. 


EWALD.  107 

with  that  'so-called  criticism"  (Ewald's  phraseology) 
which  has  "given  up  Moses  and  so  much  that  is 
excellent  besides,"  and  which  leads  on  directly  to  the 
contemptuous  rejection  of  the  Old  Testament,  if  not 
also  of  the  New  (again,  Ewald's  phraseology).  But 
in  another  he  carries  on  his  old  teacher's  work  ; 
he  stands  where  so  fearless  a  critic  as  Ewald  would 
stand,  could  he  begin  his  career  again. 

It  is  a  proof  of  the  moral  and  intellectual  force  of 
the  History  of  the  People  of  Israel  that  the  most 
advanced  critical  hypothesis  did  not  become  a  power 
in  Germany  thirty  years  earlier.  Strauss's  Leben  Jcsu 
coincides  (as  we  shall  see)  in  date  of  publication  with 
more  than  one  remarkable  work  which  anticipates 
the  theory  of  Julius  Wcllhausen.  It  was  a  subversive 
influence  of  the  first  order  ;  Vatke's  BibliscJie  TJieologic 
des  Alien  Testaments  was  not.  Vatke,  it  is  true,  had 
not  the  pointed  pen  of  David  F.  Strauss  ;  still  the 
Carlylian  denunciations  of  Ewald's  prefaces  would 
have  been  a  too  ineffectual  breakwater  by  themselves. 
Ewald  dies,  and  Wellhausen  sets  all  Germany  in  a 
flame,  commits  treason,  as  Lord  Acton  calls  it, 
against  his  old  master.  In  another  sense,  however, 
Wellhausen  is  a  faithful  disciple  of  Ewald,  whose 
principles  he  docs  but  apply  more  consistently,  and 
therefore  with  different  results.  It  would  be  well  for 
students  of  Wellhausen  to  begin  by  learning  some- 
thing from  Wellhauscn's  "  unforgotten  teacher." 

It  was   inevitable   that    a    reaction    should    set    in 
sooner  or  later  against   Ewald  as  a  historian.     The 


108      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

range  of  his  researches  was  too  wide  ;  his  self-con- 
fidence too  strong  ;  his  deficiency  in  dialectic  power 
too  complete.  But  never  will  his  great  historical 
work  be  out  of  date  as  a  monument  of  the  union 
of  faith  and  criticism.  From  this  point  of  view  it 
deserves  the  attention  of  all  theological  students. 
Ewald's  original  idea  was  to  bring  the  narrative  down 
to  the  time  of  Christ.  It  took  nine  years  to  com- 
plete the  publication  on  this  limited  scale,  the  first 
volume  being  published  in  1843,  the  fourth  in  1852  ; 
in  1848  a  supplementary  volume  was  given  on  the 
Antiquities  of  Israel.  This  work  was  an  admirable 
introduction,  worthy  to  be  put  by  the  side  of  the 
introduction  to  the  Prophets.  Our  excellent  apolo- 
gists who  are  defending  ultra-conservatism  against 
Julius  Wellhausen,  would  have  done  well  to  practise 
their  hand  on  such  a  work  as  this.  Other  men  have 
been  as  distinguished  as  Ewald  in  the  analytic  depart- 
ment of  criticism  ;  but  no  one  yet  has  been  his  equal 
in  the  synthesis  of  critical  material — he  is  an  architect 
of  the  first  order.  I  know  that  there  are  two  great 
faults  in  that  part  of  the  Introduction  which  relates 
to  the  sources.  One  is  common  to  Ewald  with  most 
of  his  contemporaries — it  is  the  comparative  neglect 
of  the  archaeological  side  of  Pentateuch-research ; 
the  other  is  a  peculiarity  of  his  own — it  is  his  some- 
what arbitrary  treatment  of  the  component  parts  of 
the  Hexateuch,  and  his  perplexing  nomenclature. 
But  I  also  know  that  the  literary  analysis  to  which 
Ewald    much    confined   himself  has   produced  some 


EWALD.  109 

assured  and  permanent  results,  and  that  his  analysis 
is  not  really  so  very  divergent  from  that  of  his  fellow- 
critics  ; x  his  dogmatism  in  this  particular  is  less 
misleading  than  might  be  supposed. 

I  am  unwilling  to  stir  the  ashes  of  smouldering 
controversies.  But  there  is  another  serious  fault,  as  I 
know  but  too  well,  which  still  attaches  to  Ewald  in 
many  minds.  Undevout  he  cannot  be  said  to  be. 
Prof.  Wilkins  has  rightly  emphasized  Ewald's  piety 
as  well  as  his  profundity  and  eloquence.-'  Our  critic 
never  treats  the  Old  Testament  as  if  he  were  a 
medical  student  dissecting  the  dead.  He  believes 
that  the  religion  of  Israel  was  the  "  nascent  religion  " 
of  humanity  in  quite  another  sense  from  that  in 
which  the  philosophy  of  Greece  was  its  "  nascent 
philosophy."  He  reveres,  nay  loves,  the  great 
personalities  of  the  Old  Testament ;  he  even  almost 
makes  the  anonymous  historical  writers  live  before 
us.  But  his  treatment  of  the  miracles  has  shocked 
some  religious  minds.  Even  Erskine  of  Linlathen 
speaks  of  Ewald  in  one  of  his  letters  as  giving  "  the 
history  of  Israel  divested  of  miracle,  and  (Israel)  as  a 
nation  choosing  God,  not  chosen  by  God."3  All  that 
is  true,  however,  is  that  Ewald  has  no  scholastic  theory 
of  miracles,  and  that  to  him  as  a  historian  the  fact  is 
not  the  miracle  but  the  narrative  of  a  miraculous 
occurrence.     Those  who  wish  to  know  more  can  now 

1  See  Merx,  Nachiuort  to  the  introduction  of  Tuch's  Genesis, 
ed.  2  (1871),  pp.  cxvii,  cxviii. 

*  Phoenicia  and  Israel,  p.  148.  3  Letters,  p.  407. 


IIO      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

refer  to  Ewald's  own  brief  treatment  of  the  subject  of 
miracles  in  the  second  part  of  the  third  volume  of  his 
great  work  on  Biblical  Theology.  There,  however, 
he  speaks  predominantly  as  a  theologian  ;  in  his 
History  of  the  People  of  Israel  he  speaks,  and  ought 
to  speak,  as  a  historian. 

Time  forbids  me  to  enter  into  a  detailed  examin- 
ation of  Ewald's  greatest  work.     I  spoke  in  my  last 
chapter  of  his  love  of  high  ideas.     This  is  one  source 
of  the  attractiveness  which   he  possesses  for  young 
students  ;  it  is  not  however  without  its  dangers.     It 
tempts  him  to  idealize  certain  great  periods  of  Israel's 
history,  as  for  example  the  age  of  Moses  and    the 
age  of  David  and  Solomon.     As  Pfleiderer  puts  it, 
"  when   any   historical   figure   impresses   him,   he   is 
immediately  carried  away  by  his  feelings,  and  ascribes 
to  his  heroes,   forgetting  the  requirements  of  sober 
criticism,  all  the  noble  moral  thoughts  and  feelings 
which  he,  the  historian,  entertains  at  the  moment."  * 
This  is  why  all  recent  investigators  have  turned  aside 
from  the  paths  of  Ewald.     Prof.    Oort   for   instance 
has  pointed  out  what  a  petitio  principii  it  is  to  make 
the  volume  on  the  Antiquities  of  Israel  an  appendix 
to  the  history  of  the  judges  and  the  early  kings,  as  if 
the  customs  and  institutions,  as  well  as  the  beliefs  of 
the  people,  underwent   no  change  in  the  following 
centuries.2     But  it  is  not  a  member  of  the  Leyden 

1  Development  of  Theology  (1890),  p.  257. 

2  Oort,  De  tegenwoordige  toestand  der  israelii .  oudsheidsktmde 
(Redevoering  aan  het  Athenaeum  illustre  te  Amsterdam  den  31 
Maart,  1873). 


EWALD.  Ill 

critical  school,  it  is  the  coryphaeus  of  the  later 
orthodox  theology,  Dr.  Dorncr  himself,  who  com- 
plains, perhaps  too  strongly,  that  "  the  internal  and 
religious  history  of  Old  Testament  development  is 
not  brought  out  by  Ewald,"  and  that  "  the  religious 
matter  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  Messianic  idea  not 
excepted,  dwindles  in  his  writings  into  a  few  general 
abstract  truths,  devoid  of  life  and  motion,"  and  that 
M  he  fails  to  perceive  the  progress  of  the  history  of 
revelation,  and  its  internal  connexion  with  that 
national  feeling  which  prepared  for  it," 1  in  short,  that 
Ewald  has  not  entirely  thrown  off  the  weaknesses  of 
the  eighteenth  century.  Dr.  Dorner  speaks  as  it 
were  out  of  the  soul  of  this  generation  ;  it  is  some- 
thing to  have  welcomed  the  discoveries  of  Darwin 
and  to  have  lived  in  the  same  capital  with  Leopold 
von  Ranke.2 

With  his  fourth  volume  (the  fifth  in  the  English 
translation)  Ewald  arrives  at  the  original  goal  of  his 
narrative.  There  is  no  period  in  the  earlier  history 
of  Israel  in  which  so  much  still  remains  to  be  done 
as  that  which  extends  from  the  Exile  to  the  Birth  of 
Jesus  Christ.  It  is  no  discredit  to  Ewald  that  his 
volume,  full  of  interest  as  it  is,  presents  considerable 
lacuna.  How  imperfect  for  instance,  in  spite  of  its 
masterly  grouping,  is  his  treatment   of  Philo  !     We 

1  History  of  Protestant  Theology,  ii.  437. 

2  "  The  historical  spirit  among  the  rising  generation  of  German 
clergymen  is  chiefly  due  to  his  fostering  care"  (Max  Muller). 
May  we  some  day  be  enabled  to  use  such  words  of  an  English 
Dorner  ! 


112      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

must  henceforth  look  to  the  co-operation  of  Jewish 
and  Christian  scholars  for  the  filling  up  of  these  gaps. 
Ewald  was  not  as  friendly  as  could  be  wished  to 
Jewish  scholars,  and  much  work,  not  indeed  of  equal 
solidity,  has  been  done  in  this  field  since  Ewald's  last 
revision  of  his  fourth  volume. 

By  his  Geschichte  Christus^  Ewald  distinctly  affirmed 
the  view,  which  is  not  indeed  the  only  tenable  one, 
but  which  is  the  only  possible  one  to  a  Christian, 
that  Israel's  history  culminates  in  Jesus  Christ.  He 
showed  in  it  that  he  was  not  inclined  to  withhold  his 
opinion  on  the  great  and  burning  questions  of  our 
time.  Great  are  its  faults  ;  great  also  are  its  merits. 
Ewald  as  a  historian  reminds  us  here  something  of 
Maurice  as  a  philosopher.  It  is  an  expository  sermon 
on  a  grand  scale  that  he  gives  us — not  a  history ;  a 
luminous  haze  blurs  the  outlines  of  his  picture.  No- 
where is  this  scholar's  literary  criticism  so  disputable 
as  in  the  introduction  to  the  Synoptic  Gospels  pub- 
lished in  the  second  edition  of  Die  drei  ersten  Evan- 
gelien,  and  presupposed  in  the  Geschichte  Christus. 
English  readers,  however,  will  perhaps  not  be  severe 
upon  him  ;  indeed,  he  shares  some  of  his  faults  (so  far 
as  they  are  faults)  with  other  respected  German  theo- 
logians of  different  schools,  such  as  Neander  and 
Karl  Hase.  I  say,  so  far  as  they  are  faults  ;  for  to 
me,  as  to  Ewald,  a  strictly  historical  biography  of  the 
Christian  Messiah  is  a  thing  which  cannot  be  written. 
The  sources  are  too  incomplete,  and  Christian  and 
non-Christian  alike  are  driven  to  complete  them  by 


EWALD.  ii3 

divination.      I  will  not  therefore  blame  Ewald,  except 
for  venturing  to  call  his  book  Geschichte  Christus. 

Here  let  us  take  breath  awhile.  The  History  of 
the  People  of  Israel  was  completed  in  1859  ;  the  dream 
of  the  author's  youth  was  fulfilled.  Soon  after  this 
he  took  another  holiday  in  England,  when  I  believe 
he  paid  a  visit  to  one  who  in  some  respects  was  very 
like  him,  and  with  whom  he  sympathized,  Dr.  Row- 
land Williams,  at  Broadchalke.  It  would  have  been 
well  if  Ewald  could  oftener  have  allowed  himself 
these  distractions.  I  like  not  to  criticize  his  personal 
character.  But  that  serene  atmosphere  which  en- 
velops all  his  New  Testament  work  did  not  penetrate 
his  outward  life  as  we  could  wish.  Had  he  but 
enjoyed  the  same  deep  religious  experience  as 
Tholuck,  for  instance,  or  Franz  Delitzsch,  that  most 
humble-minded  of  great  critics  ;  had  he,  moreover, 
but  shared  their  satisfied  longing  after  the  brotherly 
fellowship  of  the  Church — how  differently  would  his 
inward  and  consequently  also  his  outward  history 
have  shaped  itself!  It  is  all  the  sadder,  because  of 
the  noble  words  on  the  past,  present,  and  future  of 
the  great  rival  Western  communions  contained  in  the 
appendix  to  Die poetischen  BiicJier  (vol.  iv.  1837).  All 
the  sadder,  because  there  were  in  Ewald,  as  these 
passages  seem  to  me  to  show,  the  germs  of  better  things. 
Lucian  Muller  has  remarked  that  the  life  of  a  German 
philologist  is,  by  the  necessity  of  the  case,  uneventful. 
I  wish  that  Ewald's  life  had  been  more  uneventful. 
He  became  in  his  latter  years  more  irritable  than  ever, 


114      FOUNDERS   OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

and  more  unwise  in  the  expression  of  his  opinions. 
His  Hanoverian  patriotism  too  led  him  astray.  He 
had  never  forgotten  nor  forgiven  the  violent  conduct 
of  Prussia  towards  Hanover  in  1801  and  1806,  and  on 
the  annexation  of  Hanover  in  1866  he  refused,  on 
conscientious  grounds,  to  tcxke  the  oath  to  the  king  of 
Prussia.  For  a  long  time  no  notice  was  taken  of  this 
privileged  offender  ;  but  after  much  provocation  on 
Ewald's  part,  he  was  placed  on  the  retired  list,  with 
the  full  amount  of  his  salary  for  pension.  There  is  a 
curious  irony  in  the  concatenation  of  events  by 
which  the  very  man  whom  a  Guelph  deprived,  was 
now  again  dismissed  from  office  for  loyalty  to  the 
Guelphs.  The  truth  is,  however,  that  he  was  treated 
very  leniently,  but  unfortunately  became  the  tool  of 
his  party.  He  might  have  done  almost  as  good  work 
as  ever ;  he  might  perhaps  have  been  alive  now, 
had  not  his  friends  ("amici  quam  parum  amici,"  as 
Casaubon  says)  formed  the  desperate  resolution  of 
sending  this  most  unpractical,  because  most  uncom- 
promising,1 of  men  as  the  Guelphian  representative 
of  Hanover  to  the  German  Reichstag.  Let  us  draw 
a  veil  over  the  melancholy  issue  of  that  ill-advised 
step,  but  respect  the  sense  of  duty  which  would  not 
let   him  "  brood    over   the   languages   of  the  dead," 

Heinrich  Thiersch,  indeed,  sees  nothing  but  good  in  the 
rigid  consistency  of  Ewald  :  "  Dieses  seltenen  Mannes,  der  in 
dieser  Zeit  des  Verfalles  der  Charaktere,  da  die  Vertreter  der 
verschiedenen  Partheien  wetteifern,  ihren  Grundsatzen  untreu 
zu  werden,  fest  und  ungebeugt  dastand,  unter  der  Menge  der 
haltlosen  ein  christlicher  Cato." 


BWALD.  115 

when,  as    he    thought,   "forty  millions    of   Germans 
were  suffering  oppression." 

The  last  short  chapter  in  Ewald's  life  is  at  hand. 
But  I  must  not  open  it  without  some  inadequate 
lines,  which  I  would  gladly  make  fuller,  on  the  most 
recent  of  his  works,  Die  Lehre  der  Bibel  von  Gott,  the 
first  volume  of  which  has  been  translated  into  English 
under  the  title,  Revelation,  its  Nature  and  Record. 
The  publication  began  in  1871,  and  the  printing  of 
the  last  volume  was  only  finished  after  Ewald's  death. 
It  is  not  often  that  a  man's  time  is  so  exactly  propor- 
tioned to  the  life-work  which  he  has  set  himself  to  do. 
This  book  too  had  to  be  written,  if  the  depths  of 
truth  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  to  be  fully  ex- 
plored. In  1S44  two  young  Oxford  students,  one  of 
them  named  Stanley,  called  upon  Ewald  at  Dresden. 
They  never  forgot  the  noble  enthusiasm  with  which 
this  dangerous  heretic,  as  he  was  then  regarded  in 
England,  grasped  the  small  Greek  Testament  which 
he  had  in  his  hand,  and  said,  "  In  this  little  book 
is  contained  all  the  wisdom  of  the  world."  l  This 
was  the  spirit  in  which  Ewald  wrote  his  grandly 
conceived  work  on  one  of  the  subjects  of  the  future, 
Biblical  Theology.  He  wrote  it  at  a  time  of  much 
anxiety,  both  on  public  and  on  private  grounds.  The 
war  with  France  stirred  him  greatly  ;  and  much  as 
he  disliked  the  French,  he  had  no  confidence  in  the 
rulers   of  his   country.     Still  he   worked   on,  though 

1  Stanley, /tfo/jVA  C/iun/i,  vol.  iii.  Pref  p.  17. 


Il6      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD  TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

the    excitement   of  the    time   hindered    consecutive 
thought  and  the  clear  expression  of  his  ideas. 

But  however  faulty  this  work  may  be,  as  compared 
with  the  great  History  of  Israel ',  it  has  special  claims 
on  the  notice  of  all  who  are  interested  in  theology. 
First,  because  its  design  is  a  practical  one.  Strange 
as  it  may  seem,  Ewald  writes  here  for  the  great 
public.  He  thinks,  poor  dreamer,  that  the  men  of 
this  world  will  attend  to  a  system  based  on  the 
historical  study  of  the  Bible.  Like  Maurice,  he  is 
persuaded  that  even  in  the  Old  Testament  truths  are 
contained  which  the  world  cannot  afford  to  neglect. 
He  does  touch,  however  clumsily  and  ineffectually, 
on  some  of  the  great  subjects  of  the  day.  He  does 
not  bury  himself  in  his  study,  like  too  many  German 
divines,  but  seeks  to  bring  himself  into  relation  with 
the  people  and  its  wants.  He  began  in  1863,  by  co- 
operating with  others,  including  the  great  theologian 
Richard  Rothe,  in  founding  the  "  Protestanten- 
Verein "  ;  he  now,  with  his  old  prophet-like  con- 
fidence, offers  that  which  he  has  found  in  the  Bible 
as  "a  banner  because  of  the  truth."  And  next, 
because  the  book  suggests  to  us  a  new  criterion  of 
the  relative  importance  of  doctrines.  Do  they  stand 
in  a  line  of  direct  continuity  with  the  Old  Testament  ? 
We  may  not  altogether  agree  with  Ewald's  results,  or 
with  Ritschl's,1  but  they  have  both  done  good  service 

1  Albrecht  Ritschl,  author  of  Die  christliche  LeJire  von  der 
Rechtfertigung,  perhaps  the  most  independent  and  influential  of 
recent  German  theologians. 


EWALD.  117 

in  pointing  us  back  to  the  roots  of  theology  in  the 
Old  Testament.  Lastly,  however  weak  as  a  theo- 
logical system — and  remember  that  Ewald,  almost 
alone  among  famous  theologians,  had  no  special 
philosophical  training1 — the  book  is  full  of  suggestive 
exegetical  details,  combined  with  something  of  the 
old  architectonic  skill.  The  right  hand  of  the  veteran 
scholar  has  not  forgotten  its  cunning;  and  on  this 
and  other  grounds,  I  think  that  the  translation  of  the 
first  volume  is  of  primary  importance,  not  only  to 
teachers,  but  to  students. 

To  the  last  Ewald  remained  in  outward  bearing  as 
he  had  ever  been.  No  one  who  has  once  seen  it  will 
forget  that  tall,  erect  form,  and  those  eyes  which 
seemed  to  pierce  into  eternity.  His  loss  as  an 
academical  teacher  was  not  greatly  felt.  His  enthusi- 
asm indeed  had  not  cooled,  but  it  ceased  to  attract 
students.  He  was  however  to  his  very  last  semester^ 
as  I  well  remember,  an  eager  and  exacting  lecturer 
on  Semitic  philology,  and  if  in  his  Old  Testament 
lectures  he  repeated  himself  too  much,  the  few  who 
came  to  them  were  doubtless  repaid  by  the  privi- 
lege of  hearing  Ewald.  His  death  was  the  fitting 
close  of  a  great  scholar's  career.  Only  four  days 
before  it  occurred  he  sent  in  a  paper  on  a  Phoe- 
nician inscription,  for  a  meeting  of  the  Gottingen 
Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschaften.     But  his  mind   had 

1  He  might  almost  pass  for  English  in  his  repugnance  to 
modern  German  philosophy  (see  e.  g.  Die  Lchrc  der  Bibel  von 
Go//,  ii.  45,  note  1). 


Il8      FOUNDERS  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

other  and  higher  occupations  than  this.  His  old 
child-like  faith  never  left  him.  "  There  he  sat,"  says 
one  who  visited  him,  "  in  his  long  grey  fur-trimmed 
gown,  in  the  little  green  upper  chamber.  On  the 
walls  hung,  not  only  copies  of  two  well-known 
modern  paintings,  but  the  Saviour  of  the  World  by 
Carlo  Dolci."  "  His  words  "  (so  my  author  continues) 
"  were  full  of  a  bold  assurance  that  took  no  account 
of  earthly  opposition."  l  But  the  end  was  near.  He 
passed  to  the  land  where  faithful  servants  of  Truth 
do  not  "strive  nor  cry,"  and  where  all  problems  are 
solved,  May  4,  1875.  We  will  neither  praise  nor 
blame  him,  but  thankfully  accept  all  that  is  good  in 
his  life's  work.  No  one  has  better  expressed  the 
spirit  of  his  life  than  Karl  Hase  in  one  of  his  ex- 
quisite vignettes  of  eminent  theologians,2 — "  Nach 
Gesenius  hat  Evvald  die  Geschichte  des  alttesta- 
mentlichen  Volkes  aufgerollt,  er  ein  ruckschauender 
Prophet  mit  der  orientalischen  Zungengabe,  kiihn 
und  zu  Opfern  bewahrt  fiir  die  Freiheit,  nur  durch 
seine  sittliche  Entriistung  gegen  jede  abweichende 
Meinung  leicht  verstort." 

1  Einsame    Wege  (1881),  an  anonymous  work  by  a  leading 
Lutheran  divine,  pp.  300,  301. 
3  Kirchengeschichte,  p.  582. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

HITZIG—  [HENGSTENBERG] — VATKE— BLEEK. 

The  same  year  which  is  marked  by  the  death  of 
Ewald  is  also  memorable  for  the  decease  of  Ferdinand 
Hitzig,  who  passed  away  at  Heidelberg,  Jan.  22,  1875. 
Less  known  in  England,  he  does  not  appear  to  claim 
so  full  a  notice  in  these  pages  as  Ewald,  but  it  were 
shameful  ingratitude  to  pass  him  by  altogether,  nor 
need  I,  in  eulogizing  his  merits,  show  myself  blind  to 
his  defects.  He  was  born  at  Hauingen  in  the  Baden 
Oberland,  Jan.  23,  1807.  Both  in  his  home  and  in 
his  scholastic  and  academical  training  he  was  subject 
to  rationalistic  influences,  which  were  not  corrected, 
as  in  the  case  of  De  Wette,  by  subsequent  acquaint- 
ance with  deeper  philosophical  systems.  At  Heidel- 
berg he  heard  the  lectures  of  Paulus,  but  speedily 
moved  to  Halle,  where  Gesenius  induced  him  to 
devote  himself  to  the  Old  Testament  with  a  view  to 
an  academical  position.  That  he  worked  hard  under 
such  an  exacting  teacher,  can  be  easily  believed,  but 
soon,  at  Gesenius's  instigation,  he  went  away  to 
Gottingen  to  study  under  Ewald  :  we  shall  presently 
find  Gesenius  giving  the  same  unselfish  counsel  to 
Vatke.     The  opinion  which  young  Hitzig  formed  of 


120      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Ewald  may  be  gathered  from  the  dedication  of  his 
Commentary  on   Isaiah:  uTo  the  founder  of  a  new 
science  of  the  Hebrew  language,  and  thereby  of  the 
exegesis  of  the  Old  Testament,  G.  H.  A.  Ewald,  in 
Gottingen,  as  a  mark  of  recognition  of  manifold  and 
great  deserts.''     In  1829  Hitzig,  as  a  young  graduate, 
returned  to  Heidelberg,  and  became  privatdocent  of 
theology.     His  income  however  was  so  small  that  he 
was  on  the  point  of  taking  a  small  cure  of  souls,  when 
at  the  last  moment  he  received  a  call  to  a  professor- 
ship in  the  young  university  of  Zurich.      Here  for 
twenty-eight  years  he  lived  and  worked  happily,  and 
of  the  many  German  scholars  who  found  a  home  in 
Zurich  about  this  time,  few  so  thoroughly  appreciated 
the  peculiar  character  of  the  Swiss  people.    Still  more 
gladly  however  would  he  have  returned  to  Heidelberg, 
and  on  the  death  of  Umbreit  in  1861,  the  opportunity 
offered  itself. 

At  the  time  when  I  made  Hitzig's  acquaintance, 
the  number  of  students  of  theology  at  Heidelberg  was 
not  large.  It  was  otherwise  in  1861,  when  he  took 
the  students  by  storm,  and  gathered  a  large  class  of 
interested  hearers.  No  one  indeed  could  see  or  hear 
Hitzig  without  feeling  that  there  was  a  man  behind 
the  scholar,1  and  that  his  researches  were  controlled 
by  a  strong,  manly  character.  I  ventured  to  write 
thus  of  him  on  the  news  of  his  death  : — 2 

1  Read  the  letters  prefixed  (with  biographical  sketch)  to  his 
posthumous  Biblical  Theology  (1880). 

2  In  the  Academy,  Feb.  6,  1875. 


HITZIG.  121 

"  Great  as  an  Orientalist,  greater  as  a  Biblical  critic, 
lie  was  greatest  of  all  as  a  disinterested,  truth-loving 
character.  From  first  to  last  he  never  wavered  in 
his  adherence  to  that  dry,  but  clear-cut,  sternly  moral 
Rationalism,  which  he  had  received  from  his  uni- 
versity teachers,  Paulus  and  Gcsenius.  He  was  not 
indeed  without  his  faults.  He  could  not  be  induced 
to  learn  from  any  other  but  himself.  His  love  of  far- 
fetched etymologies — not  all  of  them,  we  may  hope, 
intended  seriously — makes  his  works,  especially  the 
later  ones,  unreadable — ungeniessbar — to  a  pure 
philologist.  The  application  of  that  method  of 
criticism,  which  seeks  to  determine  the  date  of  a 
book  from  internal  characteristics  alone,  led  him  to 
many  results,  especially  in  his  work  on  the  Psalms, 
which  are  not  likely  to  hold  their  ground.  But  he 
knew  Hebrew  well ;  he  had  an  exegetical  tact  far 
surpassing  that  of  Ewald  or  any  other  scholar  with 
whom  we  are  acquainted,  and  the  substance  of  his 
works  has  become  the  common  property  of  critics. 
Two  of  these  deserve  special  recognition — his  sug- 
gestive and  absolutely  unrivalled  commentary  on 
Isaiah  (Heidelberg,  1833),  and  his  contribution  to  the 
ExegetiscJies  llandbuch  on  Jeremiah  (first  edition, 
Leipzig,  1841),  remarkable  for  its  judicious  treatment 
of  the  complicated  question  of  the  text.  But  his 
brilliant  capacities  were  already  fully  displayed  in  a 
still  earlier  work,  Begriff  der  Kritik  am  Altai  Testa- 
mente  praktiscli  erortcrt  (Heidelberg,  1 831).  He  also 
wrote  on  the  Psalms,  the   Minor    Prophets,  Ezckiel, 


122      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Daniel,  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Songs,  the  Proverbs, 
and — but  last  year — Job.  His  History  of  the  People 
of  Israel  (Leipzig,  1862)  is  in  the  highest  degree 
stimulative,  but  too  Hitzigian,  if  we  may  be  allowed 
the  term,  to  produce  much  effect  on  criticism.  His 
raids  on  the  New  Testament  had  also  too  much 
divination  in  them  to  be  successful.  Nor  will  students 
of  Cuneiform  acquit  him  of  arrogance  and  unscientific 
haste  in  his  unfortunate  essay  on  the  Language  of  the 
Assyrians.  But  his  faults  were  those  of  a  generation 
accustomed  to  a  less  severe  philology  than  the  present. 
His  virtues  were  his  own." 

To  this  I  venture  to  add  some  supplementary 
notes.  (1.)  Hitzig  was  not  less  wide  in  his  range  of 
study  than  Ewald :  change  of  study  was  his  re- 
creation. From  his  youth  he  delighted  in  classical 
studies,  and  sometimes  (according  to  Redslob)  even 
lectured  in  this  department.  An  incomplete  Turkish 
dictionary  was  found  among  his  papers,  and  it  is 
known  that  in  his  latter  years  he  studied  the  Slavonic 
languages.  That  his  imperfect  acquaintance  with 
Sanskrit  and  Zend  led  him  astray  in  Old  Testament 
research,  is  well  known.  On  New  Testament  criticism 
too  he  ventured  to  offer  new  and  ingenious  sugges- 
tions (see  e.g.  Holtzmann,  Kritik  der  Epheser  und 
Kolosserbriefe,  pp.  22,  33,  87,  158 — 160,  165 — 168,  306). 
(2.)  As  to  Hitzig's  services  to  Old  Testament  criticism. 
As  a  "  higher  critic  "  he  errs,  like  Ewald,  by  attempting 
to  solve  too  many  obscure  points  of  detail :  he  forgets 
the  necessary  limits  of  human  knowledge.     This  fault 


HITZIG.  123 

can  be  traced  even  In  his  two  earliest  critical  works. 
Thus  (a)  in  the  Begriff  der  Kritik  he  claims  a  number 
of  psalms  for  Jeremiah,  partly  at  least  because  certain 
expressions  (prosaically  interpreted)  correspond  with 
facts  mentioned  in  the  narrative  chapters  of  the  Book 
of  Jeremiah.  So  too  Ps.  lxxii.  is  treated  as  referring 
to  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  not  merely  on  the  legitimate 
ground  of  a  general  correspondence  between  the  back- 
ground of  the  psalm  and  the  story  of  the  early  days 
of  the  Ptolemy,  but  on  the  illegitimate  ground  that 
parts  of  the  psalm,  when  realistically  interpreted, 
agree  exactly  with  the  narrative.  And  (b),  in  the 
dissertation  called  Des  Prophcten  Jonas  Orakel  fiber 
Moaby  he  endeavoured  to  show,  not  only  that  that 
much-disputed  passage,  Isa.  xv.  1  —  xvi.  1 2,- is  not  by 
Isaiah,  but  that,  though  almost  without  any  historical 
allusions,  it  is  certainly  the  work  of  Jonah  ben-Amittai 
(2  Kings  xiv.  25).  There  are  many  other  instances 
of  this  same  dogmatism  in  both  his  works  on  the 
Psalms.  I  do  not  deny  that  there  is  now  and  then 
much  plausibility  in  his  conjectures,  and  had  they 
been  brought  forward  much  more  sparingly,  and  with 
a  due  admission  of  their  uncertainty,  they  would 
deserve  praise  rather  than  blame  (assuming  of  course 
that  on  other  grounds  the  period — I  do  not  say,  the 
year — to  which  Hitzig  assigned  the  particular  psalms 
was  probably  correct).  There  arc  also  many  startling 
conjectures  in  his  History  of  the  People  of  Israel,  where 
Hitzig  also  complicates  matters  by  his  strange  ideas 
of  comparative   philology.     So    startling    indeed   are 


124      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

some  of  them  that  they  would  infallibly  have  ruined 
the  reputation  of  any  other  scholar. 

Happily  there  is  much  more  to  be  said  on  the  other 
side.  On  the  larger  critical  questions  Hitzig  may  not 
be  conclusive,  but  what  he  says  is  always  rich  in 
stimulus,  and  even  his  excess  of  positiveness,  when 
dealing  with  those  problems  of  detail  in  which  he 
delights,  can  be  excused  as  a  reaction  against  De 
Wette's  scepticism.  And  probably  no  one  has  done 
so  much  for  that  accurate  explanation  of  the  text 
upon  which,  after  all,  the  "  higher  criticism  "  must 
be  largely  based.  He  is,  in  the  first  place,  under 
no  illusion  as  to  the  state  of  the  Hebrew  text,  and 
though  his  emendations  require  sifting,  they  are  often 
really  brilliant.  Certainly  he  is  never  so  ineffective 
as  an  emender  as  Ewald,  from  haste  and  inattention 
to  his  own  grammatical  rules,  sometimes  unfortunately 
is.  And  next,  as  a  grammarian,  Hitzig  is  not  inferior 
to  the  master  to  whom  in  this  field  he  has  so  fully 
owned  his  indebtedness,  and  though,  as  an  exegete, 
he  is  not  equally  sensitive  with  Ewald  to  some  psycho- 
logical phenomena,  yet  he  seizes  many  delicacies 
of  thought  which  that  too  eager  commentator  over- 
looks ;  he  may  indeed  sometimes  be  even  too  subtle, 
but  this  is  one  of  the  defauts  de  ses  qualite's,  and  is 
not  likely  to  mislead  many  English  readers.  I  will 
quote  what  another  master  of  exegesis  (Delitzsch)  has 
said  of  Hitzig  ;  the  passage  is  of  much  biographical 
as  well  as  critical  interest,  and  deserves  respectful 
attention. 


HITZIG.  i2S 

"  In  spite  of  the  difference  of  our  religious  stand- 
point and  the  bitter  words  which  we  have  often 
exchanged,  I  ever  respected  in  Hitzig  the  extra- 
ordinarily gifted  master  of  the  art  of  exegesis,  and 
there  existed  between  us  a  sympathy  which  found 
various  modes  of  manifestation.  Hitzig  himself  gave 
hearty  expression  to  this  feeling,  as  lately  as  Jan.  6, 
1875,  shortly  before  his  decease,  in  a  letter  bearing 
his  own  tremulous  signature."  *  Alas,  that  the 
religious  difference  here  referred  to  should  have 
been  so  strongly  marked  !  Both  scholars  indeed 
were  sincere  Christians  (see,  for  Hitzig's  position, 
GescJiicJite  des  Volkes  Israel,  p.  3),  but  Hitzig's  view 
even  of  the  higher  religion  of  the  Old  Testament 
erred  by  meagreness  as  much  as  that  of  his  friendly 
rival  erred  by  exaggeration.  But  let  us  not  censure 
either  scholar.  Fidelity  was  a  leading  feature  in  the 
character  of  both,  and  of  Hitzig  it  may  be  said  that 
he  was  loyally  devoted  to  the  clear  but  shallow 
rationalism  of  his  parents.  The  effect  was  seen  in 
his  narrow  view,  not  only  of  Hebraism,  but  of 
Christianity  itself,  as  is  well  pointed  out  by  a  great 
Jewish  scholar  (J.  Derenbourg)  in  a  review  of  Hitzig's 
History  of  the  People  of  Israel. 

"  M.  Hitzig  est  quclque  peu  de  l'ccolc  de  MM. 
Lassen  et  Rcnan.  La  race  semitique  est  pour  lui 
une  race  inferieurc,  incomplete,  dominee  par  les  sens, 
privde  de  toute  delicatesse  morale,  bornee  du  cote  de 

1  Hiob  (1876),  "  Vorwort,"  p.  vi. 


126      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

l'esprit,  une  race  sans  aucune  largeur  de  vue,  pour 
laquelle  Tame  n'est  que  le  souffle  de  ses  narines,  ou  le 
sang  qui  coule  dans  ses  veines,  une  race  dont  la  langue 
elle-meme,  par  la  pauvrete  de  son  fond  et  de  ses 
formes,  reflete  l'insuffisance  et  les  imperfections.  Le 
christianisme,  pour  cette  ecole,  est  avant  tout  un  fait 
arien,  un  produit  de  l'esprit  hellenique  legerement 
melange  d'elements  hebraiques,  a  son  detriment  selon 
les  uns,  pour  son  profit  selon  les  autres."  * 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  shallowness  of  Gese- 
nius  and  Hitzig,  and  the  vagueness  of  Ewald,  were 
profoundly  obnoxious  to  those  who  resorted  to  the 
Scriptures  simply  and  solely  for  supplies  of  spiritual 
life.2  Even  had  the  new  exegesis  been  more  free 
from  rationalistic  assumptions,  it  would  have  required 
unusual  strength  of  faith  to  admit  in  practice  (what 
most  admit  in  words)  that  divine  revelation  is  pro- 
gressive, and  that  the  records  of  it  are  not  free  from 
earthly  dross.  "  It  is  not  every  interpreter  who  is 
able,  like  Luther  and  Calvin,  to  place  his  novel  views 
in  a  light  which  shall  appeal  as  strongly  to  the 
religious  experience  of  the  Christian  as  to  the 
scholarly  instincts  of  the  learned.  The  rise  of  new 
difficulties  is  as  essential  to  the  progress  of  truth  as 
the  removal  of  old  puzzles  ;  and  it  not  seldom 
happens  that  the  defects  of  current  opinions  as  to 
the  sense  of  Scripture  are  most  palpable  to  the  man 

1  Revue  critique,  7  mai,  1870. 

2  Some  passages  here  are  taken  from  my  Prophecies  of  Isaiah, 
ii.  280,  281. 


HENGSTENBERG.  I  2 J 

whose  spiritual  interest  in  Bible  truths  is  weak.  .  . 
Thus  the  natural  conservatism  of  those  who  study 
the  Bible  mainly  for  purposes  of  personal  edification 
is  often  intensified  by  suspicion  of  the  motives  of 
innovating  interpreters  ;  and  even  so  fruitful  an  idea 
as  the  doctrine  of  a  gradual  development  of  spiritual 
truth  throughout  the  whole  course  of  the  Bible 
history  has  had  to  contend,  from  the  days  of  Calvin 
down  to  our  own  time,  with  an  obstinate  suspicion 
that  nothing  but  rationalism  can  make  a  man  un- 
willing  to  find  the  maximum  of  developed  spiritual 
truth  in  every  chapter  of  Scripture."1 

Only  by  such  feelings  as  these  can  we  account  for 
the  unvarying  opposition  of  Hengstenberg  ( 1 802 — 1 869) 
to  the  new  criticism  and  exegesis — an  opposition,  I 
must  add,  intensified  by  his  editorship  of  a  Church 
newspaper,2  which  kept  him  in  a  continual  atmo- 
sphere of  party  strife.  Anxiety  for  his  personal 
religion,  which  he  had  learned  in  the  school  of  trial, 
and  not  of  this  or  the  other  theologian,  converted  the 
youthful  Hengstenberg  into  an  ardent  champion  of 
revelation  (as  he  conceived  it),  and  a  certain  heaviness 
of  the  intellect  (which  no  English  reader  of  his  works 
can  fail  to  observe)  made  him  regard  any  attempt, 
such  as  Bleek's,  at  a  via  media,  as  sophistry  or  self- 
delusion.     Hengstenberg  had   no  historical  gifts,  and 

1  Prof.  W.  Robertson  Smith,  British  and  Foreign  Evangelical 
Review,  July  1876,  p.  474. 

2  To  the  attacks  upon  Gesenius  in  this  paper  I  have  already 
referred.  Neander  marked  his  disapproval  of  them  by  ceasing 
to  write  for  it.     Gesenius  was  not  the  only  sufferer. 


128      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

never  seems  to  have  really  assimilated  that  doctrine 
of  development  which,  though  rejected  by  Pietists  on 
the  one  hand  and  Tridentine  Romanists  on  the  other, 
is  so  profoundlyXhristian.  He  was  therefore  indis- 
posed to  allow  the  human  element  in  inspiration, 
denied  the  limited  nature  of  the  Old  Testament 
stage  of  revelation,  and,  as  Dorner1  has  pointed  out, 
made  prophecy  nothing  but  the  symbolic  covering 
of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  These,  even  in  the 
opinion  of  not  unfriendly  judges,  are  grave  faults 
which  seriously  detract  from  the  value  of  Hengsten- 
berg's  work.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that 
the  exegesis  which  he  so  earnestly  opposed  had  been 
equally  one-sided,  and  had  still  many  infirmities  to 
overcome.  Even  from  a  scientific  point  of  view,  it 
was  desirable  that  the  traditional  theories  should  be 
once  restated  in  a  modern  form,  that  they  might  be 
more  completely  overcome,  and  that  justice  might  be 
done  to  any  elements  of  truth  which  they  might 
contain. 

I  need  not  say  much  respecting  the  outward  life 
of  this  militant  theologian,  who  would  himself  have 
been  surprised  at  the  company  into  which  he  has 
been  thrown.  It  is  fair  to  mention,  however,  that  at 
the  university  he  studied  Aristotelian  philosophy 
under  Brandis,  and  Arabic  still  more  eagerly 
under  Freytag  (who  somewhat  later  had  our  own 
Pusey  for   a   disciple).      From    Bonn    he    passed   to 

1  History  of  Protestant  Theology -,  ii.  436-7. 


HENGSTENBERG.  I2g 

Berlin,  to  study  theology  under  Neandcr  and  the 
youthful  Tholuck.  In  1825  he  became  licentiate  of 
theology  and  privatdocent  The  following  year, 
Tholuck  went  to  Halle,  and  Hengstenberg,  partly 
through  his  learning,  piety,  and  orthodoxy,  partly 
through  having  married  into  an  influential  and  only 
too  zealous  orthodox  family,  became  the  recognized 
head  of  the  anti-rationalists  of  Berlin.  In  June  21, 
1827,  he  put  forth  an  announcement  of  his  newspaper, 
the  Evangelische  KircJienzcitung,  and  in  1828  the  first 
numbers  appeared.  The  controversial  spirit  of  this 
famous  Church  organ  gained  him  many  enemies,  and 
Pusey  would,  I  am  sure,  have  disapproved  of  the 
unseemly  tone  of  the  articles,  and  of  the  unworthy 
means  which  were  adopted  to  support  their  attack  on 
the  liberties  of  theological  professors.  But  I  do  not 
think  it  is  fair  for  such  or  similar  reasons  to  condemn 
Hengstenberg  as  bitterly  as  one  of  those  great 
scholars  whom  we  have  lately  lost  (Lagarde)  has 
been  impelled  to  do.  Hengstenberg  was  a  good  and 
sincerely  pious  man,  though  not  what  Lagarde  with 
his  English  tastes  would  call  a  "  gentleman."  And 
the  fact  that  he  endeavoured,  so  far  as  he  could,  to 
modernize  orthodoxy,  deserves  to  be  mentioned  in 
his  favour. 

It  is  this  fact  which  makes  it  possible  to  regard 
Hengstenberg  as  in  a  certain  sense  one  of  the  u  founders 
of  criticism,"  especially  for  English  and  American 
students  of  the  last  generation.  No  one  who  looks 
into  his  various  exegetical  works  can   fail  to  see  that 


130      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

he  was  not  a  Church  father  "  born  out  of  due  time," 
but  rather  that  he  had  sat  at  the  feet  of  Gesenius  and 
Ewald  for  grammar,  and  received  some  intellectual 
stimulus  both  from  the  older  and  from  the  newer 
rationalism.  The  latter  point  will  be  abundantly  clear 
to  any  one  who  will  examine  the  theories  on  prophecy 
expressed  in  his  greater  work,  the  Christologie  des  A. 
T}  The  book  is  ill  translated,  but  should  not  be 
altogether  overlooked  by  students :  it  was  a  brave 
attempt  (such  as  Pusey  with  his  Church  views  could 
not  have  made)  to  save  the  citadel  of  orthodoxy  at 
the  cost  of  some  of  the  outworks.  Of  his  other 
works,  I  need  only  mention  the  Beitrdge  zur  Einleit- 
ung  his  A.  T.  (3  vols.,  1831 — 1839),  °f  which  vol.  i. 
deals  with  Zechariah  and  Daniel,  vols.  ii.  and  iii. 
with  the  "  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch,"  and 
the  Commentar  iiber  die  Psalmen?-  It  is  needless  to 
say  that  on  questions  of  the  "  higher  criticism " 
Hengstenberg  is  almost  uniformly  conservative. 
Ecclesiastes  indeed,  unlike  Pusey,  he  denies  to 
Solomon,3  and  in  explaining  the  Psalms  he  admits 
the  representative  character  of  the  speaker  so  often 
as  to  damage  the  case  for  the  Davidic  authorship  to 

1  First  edition,  2  vols.,  1829 — 1835;  second,  4  vols.  1854 — 
1857  (recast).     Translated  in  Clark's  Theol.  Library. 

2  First  edition,  4  vols.,  1842 — 1847  ;  second,  1849 — 1852. 
Translated  in  Clark's  Library. 

3  The  historical  background,  says  Hengstenberg,  can  only  be 
the  period  of  the  Persian  rule ;  the  language  is  post-Exilic. 
The  position  of  the  book  in  the  Canon  confirms  this  view  {Der 
Prediger  Salomo,  1859,  "  Einleitung  "). 


VATKF.  131 

a  very  serious  extent.  Among  the  English-speaking 
scholars  whom  he  introduced  to  a  modernized  con- 
servatism (thus  preparing  the  way  for  greater  changes 
to  come)  is  Joseph  Addison  Alexander,  professor  at 
Princeton  Seminary,  N.J.,  an  accomplished  linguist 
though  not  an  original  critic,  known  by  two  useful 
commentaries  on  Isaiah  and  on  the  Psalms,  both  of 
which  (but  especially  the  latter)  are  to  a  great  extent 
a  reproduction  of  Hengstcnberg. 

On  April  21,  1828,  a  young  student  arrived  at 
Berlin  from  Gottingen,  who  was  destined  for  many 
years  to  be  a  thorn  in  Hengstenberg's  side.1  This 
was  Wilhelm  Vatke  (born  March  14,  1806),  the  son 
of  the  much-respected  pastor  of  Bchndorf,  a  village 
in  the  Prussian  province  of  Saxony,  not  far  from 
Helmstedt  (in  1806  still  a  university  town).  His 
father  (who  was  a  near  friend  of  the  father  of  Gese- 
nius)  was  an  earnest  rationalist  in  theology  and  a 
Kantian  in  philosophy.  It  was  in  the  orchards  and 
woods  of  Behndorf  that  Vatke  drank  in  that  love  of 
trees  which,  together  with  the  love  of  music,  con- 
tributed so  much  to  his  happiness  throughout  life. 
On  his  father's  death  (1814),  in  the  midst  of  war- 
troubles,  the  family  moved  to  Helmstedt,  where 
young  Wilhelm  received  a  good  education,  which  was 
completed  in  the  Latin  school  of  the  Waisenhaus  at 
Halle.  In  1824  Vatke  began  his  university  studies 
at    Halle,    and    after    four    semesters    spent    in    that 

1  I  am  much  indebted  here  to  the  excellent  memoir  of  Vatke 
by  Benecke  (1883). 


132      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

famous  seat  of  philology  and  theology,  and  three 
at  Gottingen,  he  came,  with  a  modest  supply  of  funds, 
to  the  still  more  brilliant  though  younger  university 
of  Berlin.  Seldom  has  a  theological  student  been 
better  prepared  for  critical  studies.  At  his  schools 
Vatke  had  enjoyed  a  thorough  classical  training,  and 
at  his  two  former  universities  he  had  been  well 
grounded  in  the  Semitic  languages  (Gesenius  had 
passed  his  pupil  on  to  Ewald),  and  had  been  interested 
in  history  and  historical  criticism,  while  from  De 
Wette,  all  of  whose  books  (at  Gesenius's  instigation) 
young  Vatke  had  devoured,  he  had  adopted  the 
principle  that  "  every  truth  is  better,. than  even  the 
most  edifying  error,  and  a  faith  which  is  inconsistent 
with  the  truth  cannot  possibly  be  the  right  one." 

Such  was  the  young  student  who  now  came  to 
Berlin  to  complete  his  theological  studies.  He  had 
as  yet  no  definite  idea  of  becoming  an  Old  Testa- 
ment scholar.  Theology  was  a  wide  field,  and  he 
wished  to  take  a  survey  of  the  whole  before  selecting 
a  field  of  more  special  study.  Gottingen  had  never 
been  strong  in  philosophy,  while  Berlin  at  this  time 
counted  Schleiermacher,  Hegel,  and  Marheineke 
among  its  philosophers  and  philosophic  theologians, 
besides  being  well  provided  with  teachers  in  every 
other  fach  except  that  of  the  Old  Testament.  Let 
us  note  at  the  outset  that  Vatke  was  on  the  look-out 
for  a  deeper  philosophy  than  either  Wegscheider  or 
even  Fries  and  De  Wette  could  supply.  Also  that 
he  took  up  the  study  of  philosophy  in  good  earnest, 


VATKE.  I33 

and  that  he  combined  it  with  the  study  of  historical 
theology  in  Neander's  Seminar.  Such  a  student  of 
philosophy,  if  he  ever  returned  to  his  first  love  (that  of 
Old  Testament  research),  was  likely  to  throw  some 
fresh  light  on  the  progress  of  religious  thought  and 
belief  among  the  Israelites.  But  young  Vatke  was 
in  no  hurry  to  return.  Hcngstenberg,  at  that  time  a 
young,  newly-appointed  professor,  failed  entirely  to 
attract  him,  not  so  much  because  he  was  not  specu- 
lative (for  Neander,  whom  Vatke  liked,  was  not  this), 
as  because  he  had  no  historical  sense,  and  barred  the 
way  of  historical  and  philosophical  inquiry.  Vatke 
was  therefore  free  to  follow  his  own  instincts,  and  told 
Neander  that  he  should  work  longer  at  Arabic  and 
Syriac  and  at  the  New  Testament ;  inwardly,  how- 
ever, he  had  resolved  to  give  his  best  time  to  the 
labour  of  fathoming  the  deepest  philosophy  of  the 
age. 

We  must  bear  in  mind  that  Vatke  was  one  of  those 
born  scholars  who  can  combine  difficult  subjects  of 
study  without  becoming  mere  dilettanti.  Thus  at  this 
period  of  his  life  we  find  him  turning  from  Hegel 
to  Church  history,  and  then  to  Rabbinic  (in  which 
he  had  the  tuition  of  Biesenthal).  But  beyond 
question  his  dominant  interest  (putting  aside  music) 
was  in  Hegel  (not  in  Schleiermacher,  be  it  observed), 
and  it  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that,  directly  he  had 
mastered  Hegel's  system,  the  Old  Testament  began 
to  appear  to  him  in  a  new  light.  Starting  from  Dc 
Wette's  conclusions,  he  went  with  intuitive  certainty 


134     FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

far  beyond  his  teacher,  and  his  clue  to  the  labyrinth 
of  critical  problems  he  derived  from  Hegel.  It  was 
not  strange  that  he  should  now  think  of  lecturing  on 
Old  Testament  subjects,  especially  as,  by  the  ex- 
change of  Bleek  l  for  Hengstenberg,  the  theological 
faculty  was  now  without  any  representative  of  the 
"  higher  criticism "  of  the  Old  Testament.  Vatke 
had  no  personal  dislike  to  his  slightly  older  rival, 
but  could  not  abide  the  dangerous  views  and  domi- 
neering spirit  of  one  who  so  dreaded  the  light  {ich 
denke  nicht  gem  an  den  lichtscheuen  jungen  Mann). 
On  public  grounds,  therefore,  which  even  Neander 
could  thoroughly  estimate,  it  was  needful  for  some 
one  to  oppose  Hengstenberg  on  his  own  ground,  and 
this  was  what  Vatke  did  after  his  first  semester  as  a 
lecturer.  No  doubt  (as  I  have  admitted)  Vatke  also 
obeyed  the  inner  impulse  of  a  pioneer.  No  sooner 
did  the  young  Hegelian  return  to  the  Old  Testament 
than  the  theory  of  his  Biblische  Theologie  began  to 
take  shape.  "  Courageously  he  made  a  way  for  him- 
self through  untrodden  fields,  and  his  pioneering 
boldness  counted  for  much  in  the  attraction  which 
he  exercised  upon  the  academic  youth."  2 

It  was  in  Vatke's  second  year  as  a  privatdocent 
that  Hegel  died  (Nov.  14,  1831),  and  only  too  soon 
afterwards  followed  the  decease  of  Schleiermacher 
(Feb.  12,  1834).  Both  events  were  misfortunes  for 
Vatke,   though   not   in    the    same   degree.      To    the 

1  See  p.  143.  2  Benecke,  p.  59. 


VATKE.  135 

former  of  these  teachers  he  owed  the  best  part  of  his 
intellectual  possessions;  to  the  latter,  endless  food 
for  reflection,  but  no  lasting  satisfaction.  For  Vatkc's 
own  sake,  one  is  tempted  to  wish  that  his  relations  to 
Schleiermacher  could  have  been  different.  His  inner 
life  would,  as  one  thinks,  have  been  somewhat  more 
normal  in  its  devoutness,  and, granting  this,  we  might 
perhaps  have  received  from  him  a  more  sympathetic 
treatise  on  the  history  and  meaning  of  the  higher  Old 
Testament  religion — I  do  not  here  merely  mean,  a 
more  readable  book,  but  one  which  appeals  more  to 
one's  religious  sympathies.  And  then,  who  knows  ? — 
perhaps  Schleiermacher  himself  might  have  been  led 
to  take  a  higher  view  of  the  best  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament  than  with  all  his  devoutness  he  had  been 
able  to  do.  The  wish,  I  say,  is  natural,  but  I  am  bound 
to  add,  that  it  is  not  one  that  could  have  been  realized. 
It  was  probably  impossible  in  those  days  to  pick  and 
choose  among  the  treasures  of  Hegel — to  receive 
stimulus  and  instruction  from  his  Philosophy  of 
History,1  and  there  stop,  without  committing  oneself 
to  Hegelianism  as  a  whole.  And  so  Vatke  suffered 
in  some  sort  (if  a  non-speculative  student  may  thus 
express  himself)  for  the  general  good.  The  step 
which  he  was  now  about  to  take  in  the  constructive 
criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  could  only  have  been 
taken  by  a  thorough   Hegelian  ;  no  other  critic  of  his 

1  The  fertilizing  influence  of  He^el  on  historical  inquiry  has 
heen  well  pointed  out  by  Pileiderer,  Dcvcloptnent  of  T/u\  I 
P-  71- 


136      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

time  would  so  intuitively  have  discerned  order  in  the 
midst  of  conflicting  phenomena.  And  I  hasten  to  add 
that  if  Vatke  suffered  some  loss,  it  was  not  in  the 
sphere  of  his  moral  character.  If  in  him  religion  was 
far  too  much  overlaid  by  theology,  its  presence  was 
sufficiently  proved  by  the  fruits  which  it  alone  could 
have  put  forth.  What  De  Wette  was  to  theologians, 
Vatke  has  become  to  a  larger  circle  of  students  by 
his  exhibition  of  such  truly  Christian  virtues  as 
meekness  under  provocation,  courtesy  to  opponents, 
friendliness  to  social  or  intellectual  inferiors,  con- 
tentment, unpretentiousness,  inward  collectedness, 
resignation.1 

In  the  year  1835  appeared  two  remarkable  books, 
one  of  which  has  passed  through  edition  after  edition, 
whereas  the  other  may  still  be  obtained  new  in  its 
original  edition — two  remarkable  books,  the  less 
successful  of  which,  from  a  commercial  point  of  view, 
commands  much  more  general  assent  among  com- 
petent students  than  its  fellow.  These  books  are — 
Strauss's  Leben  Jesu  and  Vatke's  Die  biblische  Theo- 
logie  ivissenschaftlicJi  dargestellt,  Band  i.2  Into  the 
relation  of  the  two  writers  and  their  respective  books 

1  See  especially  the  tribute  paid  to  Vatke  in  his  lifetime  by 
Delitzsch's  friend  and  collaborator  J.  H.  R.  Biesenthal,  author  of 
Das  Trostschreiben  des  Apostels  Pan lus  an  die  Hebraer,  1878 
(who,  as  we  have  seen,  instructed  Vatke  in  Rabbinic),  Benecke, 
p.  620. 

2  The  second  title-page  calls  the  book  Die  Religion  des 
Alien  Testame?ites  nach  den  kanonische?i  Biichern  entwickelt, 
Erster  Theil. 


VATKE.  137 

it  is  not  necessary  to  enter  here.  Suffice  it  to  say 
that,  while  the  Lcbcn  Jesu  addressed  itself  to  the 
thousands  of  ordinary  educated  readers,  the  Biblische 

Theologie  appealed  solely  and  entirely  to  professional 
theologians.  This  needs,  I  think,  to  be  emphasized. 
The  author  even  went  to  the  extreme  of  refusing  all 
readers  but  those  who  understood  the  Hegelian 
terminology.  He  thus  lost  many  of  the  most 
qualified  judges;  a  glance  at  the  table  of  contents 
was  enough  to  deter  Reuss,  and  of  those  who  read 
the  book  we  may  conjecture  that  not  half  did  justice 
to  its  underlying  historical  criticism.  That  this  was 
an  error  in  judgment,  Vatke  himself  afterwards  saw. 
It  is  true  that  his  insight  into  the  development  of  the 
higher  religion  of  Israel  was  quickened  by  his 
Hegelianism,  but  his  conclusions  were  not  philo- 
sophical but  historical,  and  could  to  a  large  extent 
have  been  justified  without  the  help  of  an  abstruse 
philosophizing.  A  convenient  summary  of  these 
results  will  be  found  in  Pflciderer's  Development  of 
Theology,  but  the  student  will  do  well  to  glance  at 
some  of  the  pages  of  the  book  itself.  Whether  read- 
able or  not,  the  treatise  is  at  any  rate  admirably 
arranged,  and  the  central  idea,  round  which  all  the 
details  group  themselves,  is  one  which  is  no  longer 
the  heresy  of  a  few, — viz.  that  the  religion  of  Israel, 
like  all  other  movements  of  thought  or  belief,  is 
subject  (we  need  not  at  present  ask  for  qualifications) 
to  the  law  of  development.  Many  of  the  details 
moreover  are  such  as  now  commend  themselves  to  an 


133       FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

increasing  number  of  students.     Notice  for  instance 
the  clear  distinction    drawn    by  Vatke   between    the 
religion  of  the  Old  Testament  and  nature-worship  in 
all  its  forms;  he  points  out  e.g.  how  even  in  such  a 
relatively  pure  religion  as  Mazdeism  the  conception  of 
creation  differs  in  some  points  from  that  of  Hebraism 
(p.  603).     Vatke  sees  moreover  that  the  true  standard 
of  Old    Testament  religion  is  that  supplied    by  the 
prophets    (p.  593),  and    for  the    first   time  forms  an 
equitable  judgment  upon  Jewish  "particularism"  (pp. 
614 — 617).     For  "higher  criticism  "  too  the  book  fur- 
nishes many  valuable  hints.     Wilhelm  Vatke  in  this 
work  and  Leopold  George  l  (in  his  Die  alteren  Jiid- 
ischen  Feste,  1835)  independently  put  forward  what  is 
now  becoming  the  prevalent  view  on  the  date  of  the 
Levitical  legislation  ;  Vatke  has  also  again  and  again 
extremely  acute  critical   theories  on  the  prophetical 
writings  {e.g.  on  Joel's  and  on  Isa.  xxiv. — xxvii.)  and 
on  the  Hagiographa.     Surely  to  have  produced  such 
a  book  in  1835  entitles  a  man  to  a  high  place  among 
the  "  founders  of  criticism." 

That  the  book  has  many  faults,  is  not  less  obvious. 
Though  the  author  admits  the  religious  importance 
of  highly  gifted  individuals  (p.  645),  it  is  doubtful l 
whether  he  does  justice  to  their  intuitional  origin- 
ality, and   whether  he   recognizes   at  all   adequately 

1  Von  Bohlen  too  in  the  same  year  published  his  view  that 
Deuteronomy  was  composed  under  Josiah,  but  the  rest  of  the 
Pentateuch  not  before  the  Exile  {Genesis  historisch-kritisch 
erliiutert,  1835). 


VATKE.  \yj 

the  germs  of  New  Testament  religion  contained 
in  the  Old  Testament.  It  stands  to  reason  more- 
over that  a  number  of  details  have  been  rendered 
uncertain  by  subsequent  critical  and  archaeological 
research.  Vatke  himself  in  his  later  years  retracted 
his  speculations  on  Saturn,  and  became  willing  to 
modify  his  statement  on  the  symbolism  of  the 
temple.  It  is  a  still  greater  fault,  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  u  higher  criticism,"  that  the  sharp-sighted 
author  gives  no  prolegomena  on  the  critical  analysis 
of  the  Hexateuch.  Most  important  questions  of 
analysis  were  still  but  half  solved,  and  if  Vatke  would 
not  contribute  to  solve  them,  how  could  he  expect 
the  literary  critics  to  attend  to  his  solution  of  the 
less  pressing  historical  problems?  And  yet  from  the 
most  competent  judges,  such  as  De  Wette,  Nitzsch, 
and  Ewald,1  most  gratifying  words  were  heard, 
qualifying  and  mitigating  an  almost  unavoidable 
rejection  of  the  main  positions  of  the  book,  while 
in  our  own  day  one  critic  vies  with  another2  in  ad- 
miration of  a  writer  who  was  so  much  before  his  age. 
However  little  effect  he  may  have  had  as  an  author, 
as  a  lecturer  Vatke  was  among  the  most  successful 
of  his  time  till  the  fatal  year  1849.  *n  l$37  he 
became  extraordinary  professor,  and  in  1841  published 
his  second  great  work,  called  Human  Freedom  in  its 
Relation  to  Sin  and  the  Divine  Grace.     This  is  not 

1  Ewald    however    was    not    always    so  equitable.     Both    in 
books  and  in  lectures  he  afterwards  violently  opposed  Vatke. 
-  See  especially  Wellhausen,  History  of  Israel. 


140      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

the  place  to  discuss  this  remarkable  piece  of  con- 
structive speculation.  One  may  remark  however 
that  Vatke's  genius  was  clearly  more  synthetic  than 
analytic,  and  that  consequently  we  need  not  be 
surprised  at  his  slowness  to  publish.  Moreover  after 
1849  various  influences  contributed  to  lessen  Vatke's 
productivity.  Fear  of  failing  in  their  examinations 
through  knowing  too  much  kept  away  students  from 
his  lectures  ;  and  within  his  own  mind  a  change  was 
going  forward  in  his  relation  to  Hegel,  whom  he  no 
longer  regarded  as  a  philosophical  Messiah.  One 
may  ask  whether  Vatke's  critical  attitude  towards 
Hegel  does  not  partly  explain  the  change  in  his 
opinions  on  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  his 
posthumous  Introduction  to  the  Old Testament  (1886), 
published  from  the  manuscript  of  his  academical 
lectures,  these  striking  sentences  occur  : — 

"In  the  year  1835  two  writers  came  forward,  who 
sought  to  prove  that  the  Elohim-document  cannot 
have  been  written  before  the  Exile,  viz.  Vatke  him- 
self and  George.  Graf  adhered  to  this  view,  and 
Reuss  in  Strassburg  has  also  asserted  that  there 
could  be  no  rest  for  criticism  till  it  had  been  proved 
that  this  legislation  was  the  later.  But  it  can  be 
shown  that  those  priestly  laws  proceed  from  the 
author  of  the  Elohim-document,  and  that  he  is  older 
than  the  Jehovist  and  the  Deuteronomic  writer  .  .  . 
In  order  to  explain  the  Elohim-document  historic- 
ally, we  must  ascribe  to  its  author  the  large  plan  of 
a    reform    of  the  entire    life    (of   the    nation),  which 


VATKE.  14] 

was     probably    occasioned     by     llezekiah's    partial 
reformation."  l 

Elsewhere  Vatke  expresses  his  view  thus:  — 
"The  priestly  writer  knew  the  second  Elohist  ;  he 
therefore  wrote  after  716,  towards  the  end  of  the 
eighth  or  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century, 
prob  ibly  in  the  last  yc;irs  of  Hezckiah,  and  was 
perhaps  one  of  those  who  brought  about  the  reform 
of  the  cultus  undertaken  by  that  king."  "  The  priestly 
supplementer  of  the  Elohim-document  (the  author  of 
Lev.  xvii. — xx.,  xxvi.,  Num.  xxxiii.  52 — 56)  forms  the 
transition  from  the  older  form  of  representation  to 
Deuteronomy.  .  .  .  We  shall  have  to  place  this 
writer  immediately  after  the  Jehovist,  perhaps  in  the 
middle  of  the  seventh  century,  so  that  the  work 
which  he  closed  consisted  of  the  writings  of  the 
second  Elohist,  the  Elohim-document,  and  of  the 
Jehovist.  This  work  was  found  in  624,  and  it  was 
the  supplementing  additions  (perhaps  made  with 
a  view  to  publication)  which  produced  such  a  deep 
impression  on  Josiah."  2 

This  change  of  opinion  shows,  first,  the  comparative 
isolation  in  which  Vatke  lived,  rarely  quitting  his 
beautiful  Berlin  domain  ;  secondly,  his  love  of  truth, 
and  willingness  to  correct  himself  to  the  best  of  his 

1  Vatke,  Einleitung)  p.  402. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  388-89.  Vatke's  view  on  the  date  of  Deuteronomy 
(which  he  places  in  the  last  ten  years  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah) 
is  the  same  in  both  his  books.  It  is  connected  with  his  theory 
on  the  law-book  found  by  Hilkiah  in  the  temple  (on  which  see 
Kucnen,  Hexaieuch,  p.  216;. 


142      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

ability.  It  does  not  however  perhaps  do  much 
credit  to  his  critical  sagacity,  and  has  been  passed 
over  in  respectful  silence  by  contemporary  critics. 
It  is  of  course  possible  that,  had  Vatke  been  able  to 
work  out  his  later  theories  for  the  press,  he  might 
have  been  led  to  question  their  soundness.  But  he 
put  this  off  too  long  ;  in  his  last  days  the  requisite 
mental  elasticity  was  wanting.  His  last  great 
pleasure  was  the  grateful  recognition  given  to  him  by 
the  theological  faculties  of  Berlin  and  Jena,  and  by 
many  of  his  old  pupils,1  on  the  occasion  of  his 
jubilee  as  an  academical  teacher.  As  long  as  he 
could,  he  amused  himself  with  his  favourite  composer 
Bach,  and  died  peacefully  April  19,  1S82. 

Our  next  "  founder  of  criticism "  was  in  many 
respects  most  unlike  Vatke.  Friedrich  Bleek  was  an 
able  and  truth-loving  critic,  but  like  Reuss  strongly 
opposed  to  an  a  priori  construction  of  history.  Born 
in  Holstein,  July  4,  1793,  he  spent  his  first  two  years 
of  academic  study  at  Kiel.  But  more  important  for 
his  development  were  his  student-years  at  Berlin 
(18 14 — 1817),  where  he  came  into  close  contact  with 
De  Wette,  Neander,  and  Schleiermacher.  By  the 
influence  of  these  friendly  teachers  he  was  appointed 
theological  rcpetent  (tutorial  fellow),  and  succeeded 
so  well  as  a  teacher  that  he  was  nominated  by  the 

1  Among  those  who  attended  his  lectures  even  after  1849  was 
the  New  Testament  critic  Heinrich  Holtzmann,  who  in  his 
Einleitung  (1885,  Pref.  p.  viii)  ascribes  his  interest  in  criticism 
entirely  to  Vatke. 


BLEEK.  143 

minister  Altenstein  to  an  extraordinary  professorship. 
But — who  could  have  believed  it? — that  same  terrible 
police,  which  ruined  De  Wettc,  interfered  to  check 
De  Wette's  pupil,  and  it  was  not  till  the  end  of  1823 
that  the  official  notice  of  his  appointment  was  given.1 
At  Berlin  Blcck  remained  till  the  end  of  1828,  when 
he  moved  to  the  new  university  of  Bonn,  thus  leaving 
the  field  clear  at  Berlin  for  the  two  opposing  powers 
— Hengstenberg  and  Vatke.  There  he  worked  with 
much  acceptance  for  thirty  years.  He  passed  away 
suddenly  in  the  midst  of  his  devoted  labours  for  the 
university  and  the  Church,  Feb.  27,  1859. 

Bleek  had  a  more  harmonious  development  than 
his  master  De  Wettc,  and  supplies  an  example  of 
easier  imitation.  He  was  one  of  those  divines  who 
(to  use  his  own  words),  "with  all  their  susceptibility 
to  the  teaching  of  revelation,  refuse  to  identify  the 
Word  of  God  and  Holy  Scripture,  and  regard  it  as 
their  primary  object  to  discern  the  Word  of  God  in 
Holy  Scripture."  His  essentially  evangelical  character 
cannot  be  denied,  but  the  via  media  which  he  put 
forward  failed  to  satisfy,  not  only  Hengstenberg,  but 
even  such  a  sensible  English  churchman  as  Canon 
Venables,  to  whose  only  too  balanced  commendations 
we  may  partly  ascribe  the  failure  of  the  English 
translation  of  Bleek's  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment?    Certainly  few  books  of  German  origin  were 

1  Kamphauscn  in  Hcrzog-Plitt's  Encycl. 

2  See  preface  to  English  edition  (2  vols.,  1869).    Probably,  how- 
ever, the  blame  must  be  shared  by  Mr.  Venables  the  translator. 


144      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

more  fitted  to  succeed,  and  no  English  scholar  being 
ready  to  provide  a  substitute,  one  would  have  thought 
that  our  Church  leaders  would  have  recognized  the 
duty  of  pressing  the  claims  of  Bleek,  as  I  ventured  to 
do  myself  in  1870.1  But  it  was  not  to  be.  Colenso's 
brave  but  ill-regulated  criticism  was  not  to  be  welcomed 
as  the  first  step  towards  something  better,  but  to  be 
put  down,  and  the  Church  has  had  to  suffer  the  bitter 
consequences.  It  is  right  however  to  scan  some  of 
the  features  of  the  book  which  ought  to  have  done  so 
much  for  us.  Let  us  notice  then,  {a)  that  Bleek's 
Introduction  is  not  a  mere  handbook,  but  can  be  read 
with  pleasure.  Though  it  does  not  go  deeply  into 
disputable  points,  what  it  gives  is  full  enough  and 
clear  enough  to  be  taken  in.  (b)  That  its  critical  tone 
is  not  negative,  but  positive  ;  it  avoids  the  faults  of 
the  early  editions  of  De  Wette's  handbook,  (c)  It 
does  not  aim  at  giving  a  complete  and  consistent 
critical  history  of  the  Old  Testament  literature  ;  it 
does  but  make  contributions  to  this  (see  preface  of 
the  German  editors).  The  student  therefore  is  not 
in  danger  of  supposing  that  his  teacher  is  "  biassed." 
Of  course,  this  attitude  was  somewhat  easier  in 
Bleek's  time  than  it  is  in  ours,  (d)  Though  the  book 
is  in  the  main  non-theological,  the  author  does  not 
disguise  his  own  theological  stand-point.  Like  all 
our  leading  critics,  he  has  a  positive  theology  (though 
not  a  theological  system),  to  which  upon  due  occasion 

1  Review  of  Schrader's  edition  of  De  Wette's  Introduction. 
Academy  (Aug.  13,  1S70). 


BLEEK.  145 

(see  e.  g.  §  193)  he  refers,  and  his  theology  is  that 
genuine  historical  evangelical  theology,  which  in  the 
Anglican  Church  appears  as  yet  to  have  only  a  few 
scattered  representatives. 

May  I  not  venture  to  say  that  by  producing  such 
a  book  (based  as  it  is  upon  the  academical  teaching 
of  many  years)  Bleck  would  have  established  his 
claim  to  be  one  of  the  "  founders  of  criticism,"  even  if 
he  had  done  nothing  more?  One  may  cheerfully 
grant  that  many  of  the  conclusions  of  the  book  are 
now  out  of  date.  In  Pentateuch  criticism,  for  instance, 
he  now  appears  far  too  conservative.  When  for 
instance  the  venerable  K.  J.  Nitzsch  (one  of  the 
most  earnest  opponents  of  Vatke)  reckons  among 
Bleek's  merits  "  the  proof  of  the  Mosaic  age  of  funda- 
mental laws  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  the  historicity 
of  the  scaffolding  of  the  patriarchal  narrative,"  we 
hesitate  to  give  full  assent,  knowing  that  there  was 
much  crudeness  in  the  views  of  Bleek,  and  having 
lost  that  dread  of  an  "attenuation  "  ( Verdunnung)  of 
Abraham  and  Moses l  which  beset  the  reviewers 
of  Vatke's  Biblische  Theologie.  But  in  his  own  day 
such  conservative-liberalism  as  Bleek's  was  a  whole- 
some element  of  thought.  And  plain,  not  to  say 
self-evident,  as  his  remarks  on  the  Book  of  Daniel 
may  now  seem,  we  must  not  forget  that  by  his  early 
dissertation  on  "  the  authorship  and  object  of  Daniel  " 
Bleek  contributed  much  to  make  them  so.     Nor  have 


1  See  Nitzsch,  in  Benecke,  Wilhclm  /  <///v,  p.  216;  cf.  p.  551, 

L 


I46      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

all  Old  Testament  scholars  yet  reached  to  the  very 
moderate  degree  of  critical  progress  indicated  in 
Bleek's  important  paragraphs  on  the  analysis  of  Isa. 
xl. — lxvi.  Altogether,  one  may  safely  say  that  Keil's 
unfavourable  judgment  on  Bleek's  Introduction  is  not 
justified. 

It    has    not    yet    been    mentioned    that    the    work 
referred  to  is   a  posthumous  publication.     The  first 
edition  came  out  in  i860,  under  the  care  of  Johannes 
Bleek  and    Adolf  Kamphausen.     In   1878  the  book 
appeared   in  a  much  altered  form,  which  seemed  to 
the  publisher  to  be  dictated  by  the  altered  aspect  of 
critical  problems.     The  editor  was  Julius  Wellhausen, 
who  re-wrote  parts  of  it,  and  would  doubtless  have  re- 
written more,  but  for  the  fear  of  seeming  to  anticipate 
the  opinion  of  scholars  on  his  own  recent  articles  on 
the    composition    of    the    Hexateuch.      This    fourth 
edition    is    therefore    virtually    a    criticism     (and    a 
valuable  one  it  is)  on  Bleek's  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament}     Nor  is  this  the   only  posthumous  work 
of    Bleek.       In     1862    his    Introduction    to    the   New 
Testament  was  published,2  and  in  the  same  year  his 
Synoptical  Explanation   of   the    Three  First  Gospels, 
and    his   Lectures   o?i    the   Apocalypse ;    in    1865,    his 
Lectures   on    Colossians,    Philippians,  and  Ephesians , 

1  In  ed.  5  (1886)  much  of  the  editorial  element  has  been 
withdrawn. 

2  In  the  third  and  fourth  editions  (cared  for  by  Mangold)  the 
views  given  by  Bleek  have  been  considerably  modified  (see  B. 
Weiss's  review,  Theol.  Lit.-Ztg.,  Jan.  8,  1876.  The  English  trans- 
lation (by  Urwick)  is  made  from  the  second  German  edition. 


KLEEK.  I47 

and  his  Lectures  on  the  F.pistle  to  the  Hebrews*     And 

before  passing  on,  I  may  remark  that  Bleek  is  even 
more  important  in  the  exegesis  of  the  New  Testament 
than  in  that  of  the  Old.  His  great  work  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (1828-36-40)  is  neglected  by 
none  of  our  best  scholars,  and  his  second  larger  work, 
Contributions  to  the  Criticism  of  the  Gospels  (1846), 
is  especially  important  in  the  annals  of  the  criticism 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The  latter  book  was  dedicated 
to  Bleek's  old  teacher  De  Wette,  upon  whom  it 
evidently  produced  a  deep  impression.1  The  positive 
tendency  of  Bleek  on  the  Johannine  question  reminds 
us  that  he  was  a  devoted  pupil  of  Schleiermacher. 

In  fact,  the  relations  between  Dc  Wette  and  his 
younger  friends  Bleek  and  Liicke  illustrate' one  of  the 
most  pleasing  traits  in  the  character  of  the  former,  viz. 
his  willingness  to  receive  suggestions  from  his  juniors. 
He  never  himself  reached  such  positive  views  cither  on 
the  historicity  of  the  Pentateuch  or  on  the  authorship 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  Bleek,  but  he  let  himself  be 
impressed  by  Bleek's  arguments.  In  1822  the  latter, 
at  that  time  merely  a  theological  repetent,  published 
in  Rosenmiiller's  Repertorium  -  (Bd.  i.)  an  article 
called  "  Some  Aphoristic  Contributions  to  Pentateuch 
Researches,"  which,  as  Westphal  remarks,  produced  a 
sensation.  "Bleek  parut,  sans  hardiessc  et  sins 
passion  :  on  1'ecouta."  3     De  Wette  was  the  foremost 

1  See  quotations  in  Watkins,  Bampton  Lectures  for  1S90.  p. 
309.  -  Cf.  Bleek;s  ItOrod.  §  74. 

3  Les  sources  an  Pentateuque^  i.  166. 


148      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

to  admit  the  weight  of  Bleek's  objections,  and 
retreated  (in  the  third  edition  of  his  Introduction) 
from  his  most  advanced  positions.  Later  on  (in  his 
fifth  edition)  the  same  candid  critic  accepted  from 
Bleek  and  Tuch  the  famous  Supplement-hypothesis, 
towards  which  he  himself  in  his  Beitrdge  had  been 
unconsciously  moving — i.  e.  the  hypothesis  that  an 
Elohistic  Grundschrift  or  "  fundamental  writing"  (as 
Tuch  first  called  it)  was  "worked  over"  and  supple- 
mented by  a  second  writer  commonly  called  the 
Yahvist.  For  Bleek's  view  on  this  subject  see  (besides 
the  Introd.)  his  De  libri  Geneseos  origine  atqne  indole 
historica  observationes  qucedam  contra  Bohlenium l 
(1836).  I  part  from  this  truly  Christian  scholar  with 
sympathy,  though  as  a  critic  I  cannot  think  that  he 
was  sufficiently  keen.  Among  his  other  works  I  would 
mention  his  epoch-making  dissertation  on  the  origin 
and  composition  of  the  Sibylline  Oracles  (Schleier- 
macher's  Zeitsc/irift,  1819-20),  and  his  inquiry  into  the 
origin  of  Zech.  ix. — xiv.  {Theol.  Stud.  u.  Kritiken, 
1852,  pp.  247 — 332;  see  also  Bleek's  Introd),  the 
results  of  which  should  be  compared  with  those  of  De 
Wette  in  his  Introduction. 

1  Bleek's  criticisms  of  von  Bohlen's  Genesis  illustrate  the 
difference  between  himself  and  Hitzig.  The  latter  also  reviewed 
von  Bohlen  {Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krtt.  1837)  ;  he  found  something  to 
praise,  but  more  to  blame,  or  at  least  to  reject.  But  whereas 
Bleek  charges  von  Bohlen  with  protervia  and  arrogantia,  Hitzig 
declares  that  the  censure  is  unmerited  ;  he  can  only  see  the 
Keckheit  of  a  young  scholar  rejoicing  in  his  strength. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

HUPFELD — DELITZSCII. 

It  is  natural  to  pass  from  Friedrich  Blcck  to 
Hermann  Hupfeld,  who  stands  in  the  same  rank  as 
a  clear-headed,  accurate,  dispassionate,  and  funda- 
mentally devout  scholar.1  Looking  at  the  early 
history  of  the  latter  as  described  by  himself,  one  can 
see  that  it  throws  much  light  on  his  character  as  a 
scholar.  He  was  born  March  31,  1796,  at  Marburg. 
His  father  was  a  pastor  who  held  the  usual  rational- 
istic views  in  no  extreme  form,  but  at  the  age  of 
thirteen  the  lad  passed  into  the  house  of  an  uncle,  a 
pastor  of  "pietistic"  views,  who  carefully  superintended 
his  studies,  but  was  compelled  to  leave  him  for  many 
hours  alone.  The  consequence  was  that  while  on  the 
one  hand  the  inquisitive  boy  made  great  progress  in 
his  studies,  on  the  other  he  became  too  thoughtful  and 
critical  for  his  years,  and  was  without  the  stimulus 

1  A  Lebens-  und  Charakterbild  of  Hupfeld  was  published  by 
his  pupil  and  friend  Ed uard  Richm  (now  himself  deceased)  ; 
Kamphausen's  article  in  Herzog-Plitt  contains  a  good  summary 
of  facts,  with  an  appreciative  estimate  of  Hupfeld  as  a  man  and 
a  scholar. 


150      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

supplied  to  the  imagination  by  history  and  poetry. 
From  a  religious  point  of  view,  he  gained  much  from 
this  residence  with  his  uncle  ;  he  became  heartily 
attached  to  Christian  truth,  and  desired  nothing  better 
than  to  become  a  pastor  himself.  So,  after  spending 
a  year  and  a  half  at  the  gymnasium  at  Hersfeld, 
young  Hupfeld  matriculated  at  the  Hessian  university 
of  Marburg.  There  he  came  under  the  influence  of  a 
decided  supernaturalist,  A.  J.  Arnoldi,  who,  though 
not  famous  in  research,  was  an  eminent  teacher, 
and  grounded  him  in  Arabic  and  Syriac  as  well  as  in 
Hebrew  philology.  But  it  was  entirely  by  his  own 
efforts  that,  after  leaving  the  university,  he  reached  a 
view  of  the  Old  Testament,  independent  of  modern 
theological  theories,  and  equally  satisfactory  to  his 
historical  and  to  his  religious  sense.  The  charm  of 
the  view  which  thus  opened  itself  to  him  was  so  great, 
that  he  felt  that  only  as  an  academical  teacher  could 
he  do  his  best  work,  and  that, "  cost  what  it  might," 
he  must  obtain  admission  to  this  office. 

It  became  necessary  therefore  to  resume  his 
student  life,  and  after  a  year  and  a  half's  quiet  study, 
he  went  to  Halle  in  1824,  not  so  much  however,  as  it 
would  seem,  for  training  (for  he  only  remained  in 
Halle  a  year),  as  for  stimulus.  In  1825  he  first 
lectured  as  privatdocent  at  Marburg,  and  as  an  extra- 
ordinary professor.  In  the  same  year  he  won  his  spurs 
as  a  grammarian.  For  more  than  a  hundred  years 
Ethiopic  philology  had  been  almost  entirely  neglected, 
and  it  was  Hupfeld  who,  by  his  Excrcitationes  ALthi- 


HUPFELD.  151 

opiccs  (published  in  1825),  gave  the  first  impulse  to  a 
resumption  of  this  study.  Soon  after,  he  became  full 
professor,  and  the  following  years  were  the  happiest 
of  his  life,  not  only  because  of  his  love  for  Marburg, 
but  because  they  were  the  years  of  wedded  happiness. 
In  1843  Hupfeld  had  the  honour  of  being  called  to 
Halle  as  successor  of  Gesenius,  and  scarcely  three 
months  afterwards  (Jan.  1844)  he  lost  his  "  angelic  " 
wife  by  low  fever. 

There  is  little  more  to  tell  about  Hupfeld's  outward 
history.      At    Halle,   where    he    had    the    illustrious 
Semitist  Rodiger  for  a  colleague,  he  exercised  a  wide 
and    beneficial     influence    on    theological    students. 
Surely  his  path  ought  to  have  been  a  .smooth  one. 
How  Gesenius  was  treated  by  Hengstenberg,  we  have 
seen  ;  but  Hupfeld  was  very  different  religiously  from 
his    predecessor.     It    is    therefore  strange  indeed    to 
have  to  report  that  in   1865   he  was  delated    to  the 
Prussian  government  as  an  irreverent  critic  of  divine 
revelation — a    charge    which    the    entire    theological 
faculty  of   Halle  university,  including    Tholuck  and 
Julius  Muller,  repelled  on  his  behalf.    Soon  afterwards 
(April  24,   1866)  this  unweariable  worker  passed  to 
u  where  beyond  these  voices  there  is  peace."     Some- 
thing must  however  be  added  on  his  philological  and 
theological  position.     I  have  already  compared  him 
to  Bleek.     It  is  true,  he  did  not  belong  like  Bleek  to 
a  definite  theological  school.    Bleek  was  and  remained 
a  disciple  of  Schleiermacher  ;  Hupfeld,  on  the  other 
hand,    came    from    the    school    of  the    old-fashioned 


152      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

supernaturalist  Arnoldi,  and  when  he  ceased  to  think 
with  his  teacher,  he  does  not  appear  to  have  put 
himself  under  another  master.  Now  Hupfeld's  own 
tendencies  were,  not  philosophical,  but  philological. 
A  historical  view  of  the  Biblical  literature,  and  of  the 
progress  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  gave  him  basis  enough 
for  his  own  personal  theology.  In  practical  Church 
matters  he  evinced  a  profound  interest,  but  in  a 
theological  dispute  he  but  once  took  part(i86i);  it 
was  to  counteract  the  theosophic  theology  of  Hof- 
mann  of  Erlarigen  (the  friend  of  Delitzsch),  which  no 
doubt  had  an  exegetical  basis.1  Hupfeld  and  Bleek 
moreover  had  somewhat  different  fields  of  work.  The 
former  concentrated  himself  more  upon  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  was  specially  attracted  by  the  problems 
of  Old  Testament  philology  and  exegesis :  he  thus 
became  the  fitting  successor  of  Gesenius.  And  though 
both  agreed,  as  I  have  said,  in  certain  high  moral 
qualities,  yet  there  was  a  sharpness  in  Hupfeld's 
manner  from  which  Bleek  was  entirely  free,  and  which 
is  certainly  no  essential  characteristic  of  a  truth-loving 
man.  To  Hupfeld's  inconsiderate  condemnation  of 
Delitzsch,  that  lovable  scholar  replied  in  the  gentlest 
terms,  which  pricked  the  conscience  of  Hupfeld,  and 
awakened    echoes  of  happier  days.2      We  must  not 

1  As  Baudissin  says,  "  Die  Erlanger  '  Heilsgeschichte '  ist 
keine  eigentliche  Geschichte.  Sie  besteht  darin,  dass  ein  im 
Himmel  von  vornherein  fertiges  Gefiige  in  seinen  einzelnen 
Gliedern  allmahlich  herniedersteigt  in  das  Irdische  "  (review  of 
Delitzsch's  Iris). 

2  Preface  to  second  edition  of  Delitzsch's  Psalms. 


HUPFELD.  153 

forget  the  great  sorrow  uiiien  naa  befallen  the  Halle 
professor  in  1S44,  and  also  the  intense  dislike  of 
Hupfeld  to  mysticism. 

By  his  special  linguistic  work,  our  scholar  early  won 
a  deserved  reputation.  His  Hebrew  Grammar  (1841) 
unhappily  remained  a  torso,  but  again  and  again  he 
returned  to  grammatical  and  lexicographical  subjects, 
and  once  he  resumed  the  study  of  Ethiopic.  His  dis- 
sertations on  certain  obscure  and  misunderstood  pas- 
sages of  the  history  of  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament 
{Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1830,  1837)  were  also  fruitful  in 
important  results.  But  his  two  great  works  are,  I.  The 
Sources  of  Genesis,  and  the  Mode  of  their  Combination, 
investigated  anew  (1853  ,and  2.  The  Psalms,  translated 
and  expounded  (4  vols.  1855 — 1861).  Of  the  former  it 
is  possible  to  speak  in  the  highest  terms.  Ilgen's  dis- 
covery of  the  second  Elohist  had  (as  we  have  seen) 
to  be  made  over  again,  and  it  was  Hupfeld's  good 
fortune,  or  rather  merit,  to  make  it.  He  also  showed 
clearly  that  each  of  the  three  documents  of  Genesis 
was  originally  an  independent  work,  upon  which,  as 
Mr.  Addis  remarks,1  the  Supplement-hypothesis  came 
to  a  natural  end.  Of  the  latter  I  find  it  more  difficult 
to  speak  as  I  could  wish.  No  doubt,  upon  its  appear- 
ance it  exercised  on  the  whole  a  healthy  influence 
both  upon  criticism  and  upon  exegesis.  It  uttered  a 
not  unjustified  protest  against  extravagances  o{  all 
sorts,  in  linguistics,  in   Biblical  theology,  and  in  the 

1  See  his  sketch  of  Hupfeld's  work.   The  Documents  of 

Hcxatcuch,  Intiod.  pp.  xxviii — xxix. 


154      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

"  higher  criticism,"  in  which  third  department  it  con- 
tinued the  work  of  De  Wette.  What  it  says  is  always 
worth  reading-;  Hupfeld's  eye  was  constantly  directed 
on  facts,  and  if  he  did  not  see  all  the  facts,  nor  always 
explain  or  combine  them  aright,  this  does  not  render 
his  laborious  work  superfluous.  For  my  own  part, 
I  think  that  Hupfeld's  conclusions  are  very  often 
erroneous.  He  is  far  too  unsuspicious  in  his  attitude 
towards  the  received  text,  and  is  wooden  in  his 
exegesis.  In  his  Biblical  theology  he  is  not  profound 
or  comprehensive  enough,  though  only  ignorance  can 
excuse  Dr.  Binnie's  suggestion  that  he  is  "  incompetent 
in  matters  lying  within  the  domain  of  spiritual 
religion." 1  And  in  the  "  higher  criticism  "  he  errs  by 
defect  even  more  than  Hitzig  errs  by  excess  of  daring. 
Nor  does  he,  so  far  as  I  know,  redeem  his  comparative 
failure  as  a  critic  of  the  Psalter  by  luminous  sugges- 
tions on  the  "  higher  criticism  "  of  other  books  (except 
indeed  to  some  extent  on  that  of  Genesis).  All  that 
he  says,  for  instance,  about  the  origin  of  Joel  is  that 
the  Book  has  not  yet  been  understood,2  though  in  all 
essentials  Vatke  already  understood  it  in  1835.3  Still, 
Hupfeld's  historical  position  among  critics  is  well 
assured.     Not  only  did  he  contribute  to  the  linguistic 

1  The  Psalms,  their  History,  Teachings,  and  Use  (1886),  p. 
144.  Against  Dr.  Binnie,  it  is  enough  to  refer  to  Riehm's 
decisive  statements  in  his  Lebensbild.  I  concur  with  this  writer 
however  in  his  unfavourable  criticism  upon  Hupfeld's  view  of 
the  Tora-psalms. 

2  Kamphausen  in  Herzog-Plitt   vi.  383,  note. 

3  Biblisdie  Theologic,  pp.  462-3. 


DELITZSCH.  155 

basis    of  criticism,  not  only  did  he  seek  to  restrain 
some  too  eager  spirits,  not   only   did    he    write    the 
Quellen  der  Genesis,  but    he   manfully   defended    the 
rights    of  criticism  within  the  Church   in  a    time  of 
theological  and    political  reaction. 

There  are  still  perhaps  some  theologians  left  who 
hesitate  to  recognize  the  "  scientific  "  (zvissenschaftlicli) 
character  of  the  work  of  Franz  Delitzsch,1  and  I  will 
candidly  admit  that  just  as  there  are  many  half- 
theologians,  so  Delitzsch  is  but  a  half-critic-  But 
that  is  no  reason  for  excluding  him  from  my  series  of 
"  founders  of  criticism."  Eichhorn  too  was  only  a 
half-critic,  and  yet  he  was  a  "  founder"  ;  and  no  one 
more  than  Delitzsch  has  helped  to  win  for  critics  their 
full  rights  of  citizenship  in  the  historic  Christian 
Churches.  Nowhere,  too,  can  it  be  more  clearly  seen 
how  largely  investigation  may  be  influenced  by  the 
idiosyncrasy  of  the  investigator  than   in   the   life   of 

1  Much  of  this  chapter  appeared  in  the  Guardian,  April  9, 
1890.  About  the  same  time  (April  5)  Prof.  Graf.  v.  Baudissin 
published  in  the  Thcol.  Lit.-Zeitung  a  most  delicate  character- 
sketch  of  his  revered  teacher,  nominally  as  a  review  of 
Delitzsch's  Iris.  It  has  been  translated  in  the  Expositor,  June 
1S90.  From  a  Jewish  point  of  view  we  have  a  graceful  sketch 
by  Prof.  Kaufmann,  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  1890,  p.  386,  &c. 
A  short  but  trustworthy  biography  has  been  published  by  Dr. 
S.  I.  Curtiss  (T.  &  T.  Clark,  1S91).  The  authoritative  memoir 
by  W.  Faber  is  still  delayed. 

2  As  a  literary  critic  of  the  Old  Testament  Delitzsch  had 
certainly  not  reached  the  limit  of  his  possible  concessions  ; 
a  historical  critic  he  never  professed  to  be.  Cf.  Curtiss's  article, 
u  Delitzsch  on  the  Pentateuch,"  Presbyterian  Review,  iSS2.  pp. 
553-5S8. 


156      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Delitzsch.  And  lastly,  I  should  be  sadly  wanting  in 
gratitude  if  I  did  not  recognize  the  bond  of  sympathy 
which  (since  1 871)  united  the  old  professor  and  myself. 
Delitzsch  had  an  attraction  for  me,  partly  because  he 
was  so  lovable,  and  partly  because  he  was  a  psycho- 
logical puzzle.  I  noted  with  interest  his  strangely 
blended  character  and  opinions — his  insistence  on 
spiritual  experience  as  a  condition  of  successful 
exegesis,  his  combination  of  mystical  philosophy  and 
sober,  accurate  philology,  his  fondness  for  relieving  a 
too  arid  discussion  by  a  flashing  subtlety  or  paradox, 
his  love  for  the  ideas  of  the  Bible,  which  to  him  were 
as  much  facts  as  the  best  attested  external  events. 
Nor  must  I  forget  to  mention  his  tolerance  (without 
which  indeed  he  could  not  have  been  the  virtuoso 
in  friendship  that  he  was),  his  love  of  the  young  (to 
whom  he  unbosomed  himself  more  completely  perhaps 
than  to  the  old),  and  his  passion  for  poetry  and  for 
flowers.  Those  who  would  form  an  idea  of  Delitzsch 
in  his  lighter  moods  would  do  well  to  read  a  volume 
of  popular  essays  by  him  called  Iris  (1888),  of  which 
there  exists  a  good  translation. 

The  story  of  Delitzsch's  outward  life  is  simple. 
He  was  born  at  Leipzig,  Feb.  23,  18 13.  The  reign 
of  rationalism  in  that  famous  Protestant  town  was 
drawing  to  a  close  ;  but  it  was  not  at  the  gymnasium, 
but  at  the  university,  that  Delitzsch  first  came  under 
evangelical  religious  influences.  He  says  himself, 
"  The  person  of  Jesus  Christ  remained  shrouded  in 
mist  for  me  till  my  university  time  began  in    183 1. 


DELITZSCH.  157 

He  remained  so,  as  long  as  I  sought  truth  and  satis- 
faction in  philosophy,  through  the  fascination  of 
Fichte."  Friendship  was  already  the  blessing  of  his 
life,  and  some  earnest-minded  friends  made  evangelical 
religion,  in  the  form  which  it  assumed  at  that  time,  a 
reality  to  him.  Delitzsch  ever  remembered  the  day 
and  hour  of  his  great  spiritual  change — one  of  those 
points  in  which  he  differed  from  mere  traditional 
forms  of  religion.  Even  in  old  age  he  declared  that 
he  still  loved  to  remember  the  days  when  the  soul- 
struggles  which  he  witnessed  rendered  scientific 
arrogance  distasteful  to  him  for  ever.1  In  1832  he 
became  a  student  of  theology.  This  was  the  year  of 
the  publication  of  Zunz's  Die  gottesdienstlichen  Vor- 
trdge  der  Judent  and  three  years  after  appeared 
Vatkc's  Biblische  TJieologie  {Die  Religion  des  A.  Y\), — 
the  former  a  work  of  immediate  importance  for  his 
studies,  the  latter  destined  to  influence  him  indirectly 
through  Wellhausen.  It  is  important  to  notice  that 
young  Delitzsch  came  under  no  great  theologian's 
personal  influence.  At  Berlin  there  were  Schleier- 
macher,  Marheinekc  (the  disciple  of  Hegel  in  dogmatic 
theology),  Neander,  Hengstenberg.  Who  was  there 
to  match  these  great  luminaries  at  Leipzig?  There 
was,  no  doubt,  Winer,  a  devout  man  and  a  specialist 

1  See  "  The  Deep  Gulf  between  the  Old  Theology  and  the 
New,"  an  address  delivered  at  a  pastoral  conference,  and  trans- 
lated in  the  Expositor,  1889  (1) ;  and  comp.  the  qualifications  of 
Delitzsch's  two  fervid  statements  in  my  letter,  Guardian,  Jan.  9, 
1889. 


158      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

of  the  best  kind  (see  his  Chaldee  and  Greek  Testa- 
ment Grammars),  and  there  was  August  Hahn,  who 
not  only  met  rationalism  by  argument,  but  penetrated 
Leipzig  by  a  warm  Christian  spirit ;  but  neither  of 
them  had  a  faculty  for  the  deepest  problems.  I  think 
that  this  seeming  misfortune  was  really  a  gain  for 
Delitzsch.  He  was  too  original  to  be  moulded  ; 
himself  was  his  best  teacher,  or  rather,  as  we  shall 
see,  Providence  guided  him  step  by  step,  so  that  his 
life  was  a  continuous  self-education.  Perhaps  a  more 
complete  historical  training  in  philosophy  might  not 
have  hurt  him.  He  was  attracted  by  Heinroth,  the 
psychologist,  but  a  turn  for  mysticism  and  theosophy, 
fostered  doubtless  by  his  deep  Jewish  studies,  seems 
to  have  interfered  with  his  progress.  At  any  rate 
the  result  in  later  years  showed  a  singular  absence  of 
sound  method  in  philosophical  study.  In  one  point, 
however,  Leipzig  had  perhaps  more  to  offer  Delitzsch 
than  Berlin.  Fiirst  was  a  greater  Hebrew  scholar 
than  Biesenthal  (afterwards  a  missionary  to  the 
German  Jews  and  Delitzsch's  fast  friend),  and  in 
the  young  Arabist  Fleischer  Leipzig  possessed  the 
man  whom  all  European  scholars  were  to  acknow- 
ledge as  their  leader.  What  Fiirst  and  Delitzsch 
were  to  each  other  may  be  learned  from  the  preface 
to  Fiirst's  Hebi'ew  Concordance  (1840)  ;  what  Fleischer 
was  to  Delitzsch  appears  from  many  philological 
notes  marked  Fl.  in  the  commentaries  of  the  latter, 
and  from  Delitzsch's  Festgabe  on  the  jubilee  of  his 
teacher,  JiidiscJi-arabische  Poesieen  mis  vormoJiammed- 


DELITZSCH.  159 

anischer  Zeit ;   tin   Specimen   aus   FleiscJicrs   SchuU 

(1874)- 

Delitzsch  had  now  a  well-defined  aim.  He  had 
begun  to  learn  Hebrew  at  the  gymnasium.  But  it 
was  the  apparent  accident  of  his  meeting  two  agents 
of  the  London  Missionary  Society  for  Promoting 
Christianity  among  the  Jews  which  made  him  "  draw 
all  his  cares  "and  studies  this  way  " — viz.  to  make  the 
Old  Testament  better  known  to  Christians,  and  the 
New  Testament  to  Jews.  Between  1835,  when  he 
became  Dr.  Phil.,  and  1842,  when  he  became  a  privat- 
docent,  he  lived  entirely  for  his  studies  and  for  religion. 
Oriental  and  religious  books  began  to  appear  at 
frequent  intervals.  In  1836  came  out  a  charmingly 
written  book  on  the  history  of  post-Biblical  Jewish 
poetry  (Ziir  Geschichte  jiidischer  Puesie) ;  in  1837,  M. 
Ch.  Luzzatto's  T3?  VtBDi  a  Hebrew  adaptation  of 
Guarini's  Pastor  Firfo,  edited  from  an  Italian  MS.  ;  in 
1838  Wis  sense  haft,  Kunst,  Judenthum  ;  Schildcnaigcn 
und Kritiken%  and  Jesurun,  sen  Isagoge  in grammaticam 
et  lexicographiam  lingua  Hebraicce>  in  which,  as  a 
disciple  of  Fiirst,  young  Delitzsch  expressed  etymo- 
logical views  which  he  afterwards  found  cause  to 
abandon  (see  the  criticism  by  his  son,  Friedrich 
Delitzsch,  Studien  iiber  Indogertnanisch-Semitische 
Wurzelverwandtsdiafti  1873,  pp.  6,  7).  I  mention 
this,  not  to  disparage  Delitzsch,  but  as  a  proof  that 
genius  may  shoot  wildly  at  first,  and  yet  afterwards 
hit  the  mark.  In  1839,  the  year  of  the  Reformation 
jubilee,  the  young  doctor's  heart  was  hot  within  him, 


l6o      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD    TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

and  he  openly  joined  the  strict  Lutheran  party,  to 
whose  critical  organ,  edited  by  Rudelbach  and  Guerike, 
he  shortly  afterwards  became  a  contributor  (it  was 
here  that  he  printed  those  valuable  Talmudic  illus- 
trations of  Greek  Testament  phraseology  which  so 
well  deserve  to  be  reprinted).  The  literary  monument 
of  this  period  bears  the  speaking  title,  Lutherthum 
und  Lilgenthiim.  Let  us  say  at  once  that  Delitzsch 
never  wavered  in  his  theological  allegiance.  I  do 
not  think  he  was  ever  tempted  to  do  so.  "  By  the 
banner  of  our  Lutheran  confession  let  us  stand,"  he 
said  in  1888  ;  "  folding  ourselves  in  it,  let  us  die." 

The  year  1841  is  marked  by  a  singular  book, 
dedicated  to  "  the  scattered  confessors  of  the  Lord," 
and  entitled  Philemon  oder  das  Buck  von  der  Freund- 
schaft  in  Cliristo.  It  consists  of  essays  on  Christian 
friendship,  signed  with  initials  which  have  since  been 
interpreted — "  c  "  =  Fraulien  von  Klettenberg  ;  "  x  "  = 
her  younger  sister,  Marie  Magdalena ;  "p"  =  Frie- 
drich  Carl  von  Moser,  a  statesman  and  author  of  the 
last  century  ;  and  "d"  =  the  editor,  Delitzsch  himself. 
Grace  of  style  there  is  none  ;  but  as  an  expression  of 
the  inner  life  of  the  authors,  especially  of  the  schbne 
Seele,  for  whom  Goethe  had  so  tender  a  reverence, 
these  fourteen  essays  have  an  interest  of  their  own. 
How  Delitzsch  obtained  the  manuscripts  is  not  stated, 
but  I  remember  his  telling  me  of  his  friendly  relations 
with  Walther  von  Goethe.  In  1844  he  published  one 
of  the  most  popular  altar  manuals  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  for  which  special   thanks  were   rendered   to 


DELITZS(  II.  I-  I 

God  by  one  of  the  speakers  at  the  service  of  March  7 
— Das  Sacrament  des  waJircn  Lcibes  unci  B lutes  Christi. 
This  shows  how  thoroughly  he  combined  the  High 
Churchman  and  the  scholar.  Meantime,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  Fleischer,  he  had  been  cataloguing  the 
Oriental  manuscripts  of  the  city  library,  at  the  con- 
clusion of  which  task  he  published  some  afiecdot 'a  on 
the  mediaeval  scholasticism  among  Jews  and  Moslems 
(1S41).  He  now  (March  3,  1842^;  acquired  the  right 
of  lecturing  by  a  dissertation  on  the  life  and  age  of 
Habakkuk,  which  was  followed  in  1843  by  an  ex- 
haustive philological  commentary  on  the  same  prophet, 
a  companion  volume  to  the  Obadiah  of  his  friend 
Caspari  (better  known  to  some  by  his  elaborate  work 
on  Micah,  and  by  his  Arabic  Grammar,  which  the  late 
Professor  W.  Wright  adopted  as  the  basis  of  his  own). 
But  why  was  not  Delitzsch  a  professor  ?  His  call 
did  not  come  till  1846,  when  he  succeeded  Hofmann 
at  the  small  university  of  Rostock  ;  he  had  married 
the  year  before.  But  he  was  not  to  be  long  in  this 
northern  home.  In  1850  he  joined  the  author  of  the 
Wcissagung  und  Erfullung  and  the  ScJiriftbezveis  at 
Erlangen.  For  sixteen  delightful  years  the  friends 
worked  together.1  The  "  Erlangen  school  "  became 
almost  as  famous  as  that  of  Tubingen.  It  seemed  as 
if  the  orthodoxy  for  the  new  age  were  about  to  be 
found.       Hengstenberg's    criticisms    and     apologetics 

1  The  theological  correspondence  of  the  friends  was  published 
by  Prof.  Volck  in  1891  (cf.  Expositor,  1S91  (i),  pp.  241  &C. 
361  &c). 

M 


l62      FOUNDERS   OF  OLD    TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

were  alike  mechanical;  Hofmann  and  Delitzsch  agreed 

in   rejecting  them.     They   sought  something   better, 

but   it    must  be   confessed    that   not  even   Delitzsch 

(though,  as  he  assures  us,  he  had  already  "  taken  up 

the  standpoint  of  free  inquiry")  was  at  all  a  scientific 

critic  when  he  went  to  Erlangen,  and  his  theories  of 

prophecy,  not  less  than  those  of  Hofmann,  bear  the 

stamp   of    immaturity.       Hofmann's    works    I    have 

mentioned  ;  Delitzsch  had  already  entered   the  field 

with   his  Die  biblisch-prophctische   Theologie  in    1845, 

the  theosophic  element  in  which,  partly  derived  from 

Crusius,  he  must  afterwards   have   greatly  modified. 

Delitzsch's   first  Erlangen  book  had  indeed  nothing 

to  do  with  prophecy.     But  it  was   not  unconnected 

with  Hofmann's  prophetic  theories.     Hofmann's  view 

of  the  Song  of  Songs  was,  if  I  understand  right,  that 

it  had  a  typical  or  ^^^^-prophetic  character,  arising 

out  of  the  contemporary  historical  situation.    Delitzsch 

was  dissatisfied  with  this  view,  and  proposed  another 

which,   with    more    right   than    Hofmann's,    may   be 

called  the  typical.     The  work   in  which    it   appears, 

Das  Hohelied  untersucht  tnid  ausgelegt  (1851),  is  not 

now  on  the  list  of  Delitzsch's  publications,  but  the 

view    is    still    endorsed   in   his  later  book.     In    1852 

appeared  the  first  edition  of  his  important  work  on 

Genesis.      Important  I    may   already   call    it,  though 

Delitzsch    himself    thought    but    little   of  the   early 

editions.     There  are  no  doubt  startling  peculiarities 

in  his  explanation  of  Gen.  i. — iii.,  which  brought  upon 

him  the  sarcasms  of  less  devout  writers.     But  by  his 


DELITZSCH.  163 

distinct  assertion  of  the  composite  authorship  of  the 
book,  Delitzsch  thoroughly  proves  his  own  title  to 
speak  in  the  conclave  of  critics.  In  1853  he  ventured 
to  touch  the  problem  of  the  composition  of  the 
Gospels  (Untersuchungen  iiber  die  kanonischen  Evan- 
gelien),  but  his  comparison  of  the  structure  of  the 
Pentateuch  was  not  helpful.  In  1855  he  returned  to 
philosophical  speculations.  The  System  of  Biblical 
Psychology  has  interested  and  perplexed  not  a  few 
English  readers.  This  is  not  entirely  the  fault  of 
the  translator.  There  is  a  touch  of  Talmudic  con- 
densation in  much  of  Dclitzsch's  writing:  ;  in  the 
Psychology  there  was  the  additional  rock  of  "  newly 
coined  words  and  daring  ideas "  (author's  letter  in 
the  translator's  preface).  Still,  wherever  light  pierces 
through,  striking  suggestions  are  seldom  wanting. 
He  attempts  too  much,  of  course,  but  there  is  more 
to  be  learned  from  Delitzsch  when  he  is  wronc  than 
from  ten  ordinary  men  when  they  are  right. 

The  year  1857  saw  tne  publication  of  two  less 
brilliant  but  really  more  important  works — the  critical 
appendix  to  Drechsler's  Isaiah  (edited  by  Delitzsch 
and  H.  A.  Ilahn)  and  the  commentary  on  Hebrews. 
The  former  is  important  for  the  subtle  theory  men- 
tioned below,  the  latter  for  its  masterly  treatment  of 
a  subject  specially  appropriate  to  a  Hebraist.  The 
suggestion  of  a  work  on  Hebrews  may  have  come 
from  Hofmann.  That  eminently  original  theologian, 
in  commenting  on  passages  of  Hebrews  in  his  Schrift- 
beweiSy  had  propounded  a  theory  of  the  Atonement 


164      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

which  gave  rise  to  a  trying   controversy.     Probably 
on  this  account  Delitzsch  wrote  his  commentary,  at 
the    end    of  which    is    a    dissertation    on    the    "  sure 
Scriptural   basis "   of  the   ecclesiastical   doctrine    of 
vicarious   substitution.       In    1859-60   a   still   greater 
treasure  was  given  to  the  Church  by  one  who   had 
more  than  most  a  natural  affinity  to  the  subject.     It 
was  fit  that  "  aller  Heiligen  Biichlein  "  (the  Psalter) 
should  be  commented   upon  by  the  loving  hand  of 
Franz  Delitzsch,  and  one  regrets  that  Hupfeld,  a  dry 
though  not  undevout  scholar,  should   have  accused 
the   book   of  faulty   taste   and    Rabbinic   philology. 
That  Delitzsch's  later  editions  are  the  best  both  from 
a  literary  and  from  a  philological  point   of  view  is 
certain,   but   the   first   edition  (which    I   have   never 
seen)  cannot  be  so  vastly  inferior  to  the  succeeding 
ones  as  to  deserve  such  a  criticism.     One  is  glad  that 
Hupfeld    lived   to   repent  it.     In   1861-62    appeared 
Handschriftliche  Funde,  mit  Beitrdgen  von  S.  P.  Tre- 
gelles,  containing  studies  in  the  textual  criticism  of 
the  Apocalypse  and  a  notice  of  the  Codex  Reuchlini, 
which  had  been  used  by  Erasmus  in   1 5 16,  but  had 
been   lost  for  centuries,  till  it  was  rediscovered  by 
Delitzsch  himself.     The  Book  of  Job  had  its  turn  in 
1864,  and  Isaiah  in  1866.     To  the  latter  commentary 
I  was  early  under  obligations  which  I  am  delighted 
once  more  to  express.     The  subtle,  poetic  theory  by 
which  Delitzsch  accounted  for  the  Babylonian  horizon 
of  (speaking   generally)    the    second   half  of  Isaiah 
never  seemed  to  me  critical,  but  philologically  I  was 


DELITZSCH.  [65 

conscious  of  a  Gnindlielikeit,  a  penetratingness,  which 
no  other  commentator  on  Isaiah  seemed  to  display. 
In  1867  a  further  proof  was  given  of  the  same  quality 
by  the  second  edition  of  the  Psalms,  which  is  con- 
spicuous for  the  completeness  with  which  all  that  is 
most  worth  referring  to  in  the  psalm-literature  of  the 
preceding  seven  years  has  been  utilized,  errors  cor- 
rected, and  exegesis  made  more  definite.  The  preface 
is  dated  July  7,  1867.  By  the  October  semester  of 
the  same  year  he  had  said  farewell  to  the  old  Bavarian 
university  ;  he  had  been  recalled  to  his  native  city  as 
the  successor  of  Tuch. 

It  is  sad  to  think  what  havoc  death  has  wrought  in 
the  faculty  of  which  Delitzsch  became  such  a  dis- 
tinguished member.  Luthardt  indeed  remains — a 
valiant  and  skilful  champion,  not  only  of  Lutheranism, 
but  of  Christianity.  But  Lechler,  G.  Baur,  and  above 
all  Kahnis,  have  all  passed  away — Kahnis,  the  brilliant 
dogmatic  theologian,  orthodox,  but  not  of  an  unpro- 
gressive  type,  and  sympathizing  with  Delitzsch  in  his 
willingness  to  meet  Old  Testament  critics  half-way. 
That  Delitzsch  enjoyed  returning  to  his  Vaterstacit  is 
clear  from  the  preface  to  his  inaugural  lecture,  de- 
livered October  1867.  Need  I  say  how  full  of 
recondite  learning  the  lecture  is  ?  The  subject  is, 
"  Physiology  and  Music  in  their  Relation  to  Grammar, 
especially  Hebrew  Grammar,"  which  reminds  us  that 
in  the  preface  to  his  earliest  book  he  expresses  his 
intention  to  write  on  Jewish  music.  Delitzsch's  first 
Leipzig  book   (if  my  dates  arc  correct)  was,  however, 


1 66      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

not  philological,  but  apologetic.  The  System  der 
Ckristlicken  Apologetik  (1869)  is  full  of  a  gentle  per- 
suasiveness. And  here,  perhaps,  I  may  mention  the 
series  of  descriptive  sketches,  partly  imaginative,  of 
the  times  of  Christ,  most  of  which  have  been  trans- 
lated—/^^ and  Hillel  and  Artisan  Life  in  tJie  Time 
of  Jesus  (these  came  out  at  Erlangen),  A  Day  at  Caper- 
naum, and  Jose  and  Benjamin  (these  are  of  the  Leipzig 
period).  The  descriptions  of  Palestine  are  so  vivid  as 
to  suggest  that  the  author  had  travelled  in  the  Holy 
Land.  Many  valuable  essays  from  his  pen  might 
well  be  collected  from  Dalieim  and  other  periodicals. 
They  would  illustrate,  not  less  than  those  in  Iris,  the 
versatility  and  wonderful  productiveness  of  this  gifted 
man.  Nor  can  I  pass  over  his  earnest  interest  in  the 
Jews.  Jesus  and  Hillel  was  first  published  in  Saat 
auf  Hoffnung — one  of  the  few  missionary  periodicals 
which  have  to  some  extent  a  critical  interest.  To- 
wards the  close  of  his  life  Delitzsch  regarded  his 
work  for  Israelites  as  one  of  his  greatest  privileges. 
How  he  laboured  on  his  Hebrew  New  Testament,  he 
has  told  us  himself  in  an  interesting  pamphlet  called 
The  Hebrew  New  Testament  of  the  British  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society  (1883).  The  first  specimen  of 
his  work  was  published  as  a  separate  work  in  1870. 
It  contained  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  in  Hebrew, 
with  Talmudic  illustrations  which  render  the  booklet 
indispensable  to  New  Testament  students.  The  New 
Testament  has  now  received  its  definitive  revision, 
through  the  loving  help  of  G.  H.  Dalman  ;  it  is  (as 


DELITZSCH.  [67 

Kaufmann  says)  "  not  an  inspired  masterpiece,  but  the 
matured  fruit  of  learning,  working  and  advancing 
step  by  step."  Nor  did  Delitzsch  give  less  attention 
to  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament.  Besides 
publishing  those  Complutoisian  Studies  which  will 
be  mentioned  presently,  he  entirely  by  his  own 
exertions  induced  the  great  Massoretic  scholar,  S. 
Baer,  to  edit  separate  portions  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  a  revised  text,  to  each  of  which  Delitzsch  prefixed 
a  learned  Latin  introduction. 

The  year  1S70  was  one  of  keen  anxiety  for  Delitzsch. 
He  lost  a  son  in  the  war,  and  could  not  repress  the 
mournful  words  addressed  to  his  students,  A  eh,  ieh 
bin  eiu  arnter  Maim  geworden.  In  1S76  he  lost 
another  son,  a  promising  young  theologian,  known 
by  an  able  work  on  Thomas  Aquinas.  His  son 
Friedrich  was  spared,  and  to  him  are  due  most  of 
those  Assyriological  notices  which  adorn  his  father's 
more  recent  commentaries. 

It  was  in  187 1  that  I  first  saw  Delitzsch.  A  work 
that  I  had  published  in  1870  on  Isaiah  at  once  opened 
his  heart  to  me.  Perhaps  he  judged  the  book  from 
a  German,  not  from  a  contemporary  English,  point 
of  view.  His  Studies  on  the  Origin  of  the  Compluten- 
sian  Polyglott  began  to  appear  in  1 87 1  (Part  II.  in 
1878,  Part  III.  in  1886);  they  arc  a  model  of  minute 
research  in  many  manuscript  collections.  His  Pro- 
verbs came  out  in  1873,  Song  of  Songs  and  Ecele- 
siastes  in  1875,  the  second  edition  of  Job  in  1876,  the 
third  of  Isaiah  in   1879,  ^1C  fourth  of  the  Psalms  in 


1 68      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

1883.  Nor  must  I  omit  Delitzsch's  second  article  on 
Daniel  in  the  second  edition  of  Herzog's  Encyclopedia 
(vol.  iii.  1878),  in  which  he  concedes  the  Maccabaean 
date  of  the  book  as  a  whole,  and  takes  much  pains 
to  show  this  to  be  consistent  with  devout  reverence. 
Evidently  his  mind  was  at  this  time  in  a  somewhat 
painful  state  of  transition.  In  the  summer  semester 
of  1873  he  had  spoken  confidently  of  the  victories 
gained  by  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  and  Keil  over 
the  "  higher  critics."  But  during  the  long  vacation 
of  1876  he  began  a  more  careful  study  of  the  newer 
criticism  by  a  perusal  of  Kayser's  recent  work,  Das 
vorexiliscJie  Buck  in  connexion  with  Grafs  older 
book,  Die  geschichtlichen  Biicher  des  A.  T.  "He 
had  never,"  says  his  pupil  and  friend  Dr.  Curtiss, 
"  recognized  the  strength  of  the  critics'  positions  until 
he  came  to  study  Kayser's  little  book."  His  change 
of  view  on  the  subject  of  Isaiah  probably  took  place 
shortly  afterwards.  I  cannot  easily  believe  that  he 
accepted  the  plural  authorship  of  the  book  when  he 
published  the  third  edition  of  his  commentary  (July 
1879),  in  which  the  unity  of  authorship  is  still 
earnestly  maintained.  But  it  is  certain  that  in  the 
winter  semester  of  1879-80,  when  lecturing  on  Mes- 
sianic prophecy,  he  assumed  that  Isa.  xl. — lxvi.  was 
written   at  the  close  of   the   Exile.1     Henceforth  he 

1  See  Messianic  Propliecies :  Lectures  by  Franz  Delitzsch 
(ed.  Curtiss,  1880)  ;  and  cf.  Old  Testament  History  of  Re- 
de mptio)i,  p.  154,  &c.  ;  Messianic  Prophecies  in  Historical 
Succession,  p.  197,  &c. 


DELITZSCH.  169 

did  not  scruple  to  use  the  terms  "  deutero-Isaiah," 
"  Babylonian  Isaiah,"  though  it  was  not  till  1889  that 
he  finished  recasting  his  old  book  (not  with  perfect 
success)  in  accordance  with  his  new  views. 

Meantime  Delitzsch  began  to  take  Church  theo- 
logians into  his  confidence.  In  1S79  appeared  vol.  i. 
of  Wellhauscn's  GcscJiicJitc  Israels,  and  it  became 
necessary  for  such  a  trusted  orthodox  leader  to  state 
his  position.  This  Delitzsch  did  in  two  series  of 
articles  called  Pentateuch-kritisc/ie  Studien  and  Ur- 
mosaisclics  im  Pentateuch  in  Luthardt's  ZeitscJirift. 
Students  of  Delitzsch's  Commentary  on  Genesis  (1888) 
ought  certainly  to  look  into  these  articles.  They 
prepared  the  way  for  that  great  fifth  edition  of  his 
Genesis  which  he  justly  regarded  as  a  new  work. 
For  an  estimate  of  the  latter  I  would  refer  to  the 
article  in  the  TJieol.  Studien  und  Kritikeu  (1889  ; 
pp.  381 — 397)  by  Delitzsch's  old  pupil  Kautzsch. 
The  book  is  indeed  open  to  much  criticism,  as  this 
reviewer  has  indicated  in  the  most  tenderly  considerate 
way.  But  it  is  both  stimulating  and  instructive,  and 
is  a  proof  not  only  of  physical  but  of  moral  energy. 
Yes,  this  veteran  required  great  moral  energy  so 
elaborately  to  revise  his  old  opinions.  English  re- 
viewers could  not  easily  understand  his  procedure 
(see  a  well-meant  article  in  the  Guardian) :  he 
seemed  to  them  to  be  untrue  to  himself,  and  to  be 
playing  with  fire.  It  was  a  mistake  on  their  part. 
Delitzsch  had  never  identified  himself  with  tra- 
ditionalism like  Hengstenberg,  and  the  alternative  to 


170      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD    TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

critical  progress  was  a  violent  theological  crisis.  It 
was  natural,  too,  for  a  sympathetic  teacher  to  enter 
into  the  thoughts  of  younger  minds,  Stade  and 
Kautzsch,  once  members  of  Delitzsch's  class,  now 
convinced  adherents  of  the  newest  critical  school, 
though  differing  on  many  not  unimportant  points. 
And  there  were  many  more,  troubled  and  perplexed, 
feeling  that  neither  they  nor  the  Church  could  put 
off  a  reasonable  solution  of  pressing  problems.  One 
of  Delitzsch's  last  printed  utterances  speaks  of  a 
compromise  which  the  Church  (as  an  educational 
institution)  can  safely  make  with  criticism.  Where 
shall  we  find  this  informal,  provisional  compromise 
better  indicated  than  in  his  article  on  Daniel,  his  New 
Commentary  on  Genesis,  and  his  fourth  edition  of 
Isaiah  ? 1 

The  last-mentioned  work,  which  shows  no  abate- 
ment of  thoroughness,  is  a  K€L[Aij\iov  to  Dr.  Driver 
and  myself,  because  of  its  gracious  dedication.  Of 
Dr.  Driver  the  young-hearted  old  man  always  wrote 
to  me  in  the  warmest  terms.  The  Oxford  professor's 
delicate  scholarship  was  of  the  utmost  service  in  the 
revision   of   the    Hebrew    Testament,   and    Delitzsch 

1  I  have  tried  to  work  out  this  idea  in  an  address  on  reform 
in  the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  delivered  to  a  clerical 
audience,  and  published  in  a  revised  form  in  the  Co?ite?nporary 
Review  {or  August  1889  (see  especially  pp.  221 — 224).  Professor 
H.  Strack  informs  me  that  I  might  have  quoted  him  as  more 
decidedly  in  favour  of  the  critical  analysis  of  Isaiah  than  I  have 
ventured  to  do.  He,  like  myself,  thinks  Professor  von  Orelli's 
hesitating  criticism  (see  The  Prophecies  of  Isaiah,  T.  &  T.  Clark, 
1 888)  not  even  provisionally  tenable. 


DELITZSCH.  i;i 

refers  with  evident  pleasure  in  the  new  Isaiah  to  Dr. 
Driver's  Hebrew  Tenses  and  his  handbook  on  Isaiah. 
The  goodwill  which  Delitzsch  showed  to  us,  he 
showed  to  all  honest  and  earnest  students  (witness 
his  preface  to  a  young  Canadian  professor's  recent 
work  on  the  text  of  Jeremiah).  That  he  came  at 
last  to  approximate  so  much  to  my  own  first  book 
on  Isaiah,  and  to  Dr.  Driver's  work  (both  of  which 
are  relatively  conservative),  is  an  abiding  satisfaction. 
Would  that  I  could  have  seen  him  again !  But  that 
erect  form  and  those  flashing  eyes  now  live  only  in 
memory.  Delitzsch  was  taken  ill  in  September,  but 
was  enabled  to  carry  his  last  work  through  the  press 
— Messianische  Weissagungen  in  geschichtlicher  Folge, 
the  preface  of  which  is  dated  five  days  before  his 
death.1  The  Hebrew  text  of  Jeremiah,  edited  by 
himself  and  Baer,  and  published  after  his  death,  has 
a  preface  dated  Jan.  1890.  He  died  at  Leipzig, 
March  3,  1890.  "Jew  and  Christian  alike  mourn  the 
loss  of  a  great  man  :  one  must  go  back  to  old  times 
to  find  his  equal,"  are  the  words  of  a  sympathetic 
Jewish  scholar,  to  which  I  will  add  that  those  who 
value  the  love  of  truth  even  more  than  scholarship, 
will  thank  God  for  the  bright  example  of  this  high 
quality  given  by  the  aged  Delitzsch. 

1  Translated  bv  Dr.  S.  I.  Curtiss. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

RIEHM — REUSS — LAGARDE— KUENEN. 

The  group  of  Old  Testament  critics  to  which,  by 
the  date  of  his  death,  Franz  Delitzsch  belongs  con- 
tains other  eminent  names  besides  his  own.  Riehm, 
Reuss,  Lagarde,  and  Kuenen  have  all  been  snatched 
from  us  within  the  last  few  years.  The  youngest  of 
these  is  Eduard  Riehm,  who  was  born  in  1830  and 
died  in  1888.  A  pupil  of  Hupfeld  in  his  youth,  he 
had  the  happiness  of  returning  to  Halle  as  the 
colleague  of  his  old  master  in  1862,  and  upon  Hup- 
feld's  death  in  1866  Riehm  succeeded  to  the  vacant 
chair.  It  is  worth  noticing  that,  like  so  many  of  our 
own  professors  of  theology,  Riehm  had  had  the 
advantage  of  practical  experience  of  pastoral  work. 
For  good  or  for  evil  this  seems  to  have  affected  his 
work  as  a  lecturer  and  a  writer.  For  if  there  is  one 
quality  more  striking  than  another  in  the  writings  of 
Riehm,  it  is  that  of  sympathy  with  orthodox  believers. 
He  took  an  early  opportunity  of  displaying  this  in 
an  address  to  the  Unionsverein  of  Halle  on  the 
special    religious  importance  of  the  Old  Testament 


RIEHM.  173 

for   the  Christian   Church   \Gemeinde)}  in  which  he 
meets  the  objection  that  the  adoption  of  the  modem 
critical  standpoint  disqualifies  a  man  for  ministering 
to  the  congregation  ;  and  shortly  afterwards,  in   the 
Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1865 — 1869),  he 
published  three  studies  on  Messianic  Prophecy,  which 
are  not  less  effective  from   a   church-theological  than 
from  a    historico-critical    point  of  view.2     The  same 
rare  quality   is   conspicuous    in  his  two   posthumous 
works,  the  Introduction  to  tJic  Old  Testament  (2  vols. 
1889-90)    and    the    Old    Testament    Theology    (1889). 
Sympathy  with  the  orthodox  seems  to  have  become 
a   part  of    Riehm's    nature  ;    he  could   not,  even    in 
critical  inquiries,  divest  himself  of  the  preoccupations 
of  a  practical  clergyman.     Now,  shall  we  be  glad  or 
sorry   for  this  ?     For   my  own   part,  though   I    fully 
appreciate    Riehm's    feeling,   I    regret   the   extent   to 
which  he  has  allowed  it  to  influence  him.     Painful  as 
it  may    be    to    one    who    would    fain    spare    Church 
students  the  least  distress  of  mind,  there  must  be  no 
compromise    in    "scientific"  {wissenschaftlich)   inves- 
tigation, since  as  De  YVettc  said   in  1S07  "  only  that 
which  is  perfect  in   its  kind   is  good,"  and   true  and 
pure  religion  cannot   be  subverted  by  any  criticism. 

1  Die  besondcrc  Bedeutung  des  A.  7\,  Sec.  (Yortrag  gchaltcn 
am  13  Oct.  1863). 

1  These  studies,  which  on  their  appearance  taught  me  much 
of  which  I  was  ignorant,  were  republished  in  a  volume  in  1875. 
They  are  now  accessible  in  the  faithful  translation  of  the  Rev. 
L  A.  Muirhead  (1890,  who  bases  his  work  on  the  second 
German  edition  (1885). 


1/4      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Richm's  criticism  was  not,  as  I  think,  free  from  the 
spirit  of  compromise  ;  and  the  consequence  is  I.  that 
he  fails  to  reach  a  consistent  view  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  religious  literature  of  Israel,  and  2.  that 
in  his  tenderness  towards  orthodox  prejudice  he  does 
not  sufficiently  consider  the  interests  of  that  spiritual 
religion  which  is  the  "  orthodoxy  within  orthodoxy." 

My  judgment  upon  Riehm,  both  as  a  "higher 
critic"  and  as  an  interpreter  of  criticism  to  the 
Church,  is  therefore  not  entirely  favourable.  But  I 
utter  it,  not  as  a  censure,  but  as  a  criticism  of  some- 
thing which,  under  our  present  circumstances,  must 
provisionally  exist,  both  in  Germany  and  in  England. 
I  never  saw  Riehm,  but  can  easily  believe  that,  with 
his  "liebenswerthe  Personlichkeit,"  he  was  incapable 
of  such  an  heroic  act  of  faith  as  De  Wette  with  his 
cooler  or  rather  more  composite  nature.  Nor  do  I 
deny  the  relative  excellence  of  Riehm's  work  both  as 
a  critic  and  as  an  interpreter  of  criticism.  Compare 
him  with  Delitzsch  and  with  Orelli,  and  his  services 
appear  in  a  specially  favourable  light.  He  has,  I  am 
sure,  done  better  critical  work  than  either,  and  been 
more  effective  in  clearing  up  the  views  of  orthodox 
students.  His  two  posthumous  works  are  specially 
valuable  from  the  consideration  which  the  author 
gives  to  the  views  of  other  critics,  and  I  can  well 
believe  that  some  of  the  best  of  our  coming  theo- 
logians have  been  trained  in  his  lecture- room. 
Among  his  other  critical  writings  I  may  mention  his 
early  work,  The  Legislation  of  Moses  in  tlie  Land  of 


RF.USS.  1/5 

Moab1  (1854),  and    his  articles   in   the  Studien  und 

Kritikcn,  especially  the  criticism  of  Graf's  theory  ■ 
(1868),  and  the  papers  entitled  respectively,  "The  so- 
called  '  Grundschrift '  of  the  Pentateuch"  (1872),  and 
"  The  Conception  of  Atonement  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment" (1877).  Nor  must  I  omit  his  exegetical  work 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (1858-59  ;  cd.  2,  1867), 
his  edition  of  Hupfcld's  Psalms  (already  mentioned), 
and  his  contributions  to  the  Dictionary  of  Biblical 
Antiquity,  edited  by  him  in    1S75  — 1884. 

Eduard  Reuss,  the  Nestor  of  Old  Testament  stu- 
dents in  our  own  time,  died  quite  recently  (April  15, 
1891),  but  was  born  as  long  ago  as  July  18,  1804 
("  29  Messidor,  xii.").  His  home,  from  youth  to  age, 
was  at  Strassburg.  There  he  began  his  philological 
and  theological  studies,  but  according  to  the  laudable 
custom   of  continental    students,   he    sought    further 


1  The  Deuteronomic  law-book  is  here  assigned  by  Riehm  to 
the  second  half  of  Manasseh's  reign.  In  his  posthumous  Intro- 
duction the  date  is  thrown  even  further  back — to  the  time 
shortly  before  or  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Hezekiah 
(against  both  views,  see  Kuencn,  Hcxatcuch,  p.  219).  I  do  not 
understand  how  Westphal  can  date  the  advent  of  historical 
Pentateuch  criticism  from  the  appearance  of  this  book  [Les 
sources  du  Pent.,  ii.  Prcf.  p.  xxiv). 

2  To  some  extent  this  criticism  is  decisive  against  Graf,  as 
that  candid  critic  himself  acknowledged  (Merx's  Archiv  fur 
wissenschaftliche  Erforschung  des  A.  7*.,  L  467).  It  app 
however  from  a  letter  of  Graf,  printed  by  Kuencn  (see  Hexa- 
teuch,  Introd.  p.  xxxiii),  that  it  was  really  a  friendly  criticism 
of  Kuenen  that  led  Graf  to  revise  his  theory,  and  to  admit  that 
the  ritual  laws  could  not  be  separated  from  the  narratives  of 
the  "  Grundschrift." 


176      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 


guidance  at  other  seats  of  learning — first  at  Gottingen 
and  Halle  (1822 — 1826),  and  then  (as  was  natural)  at 
Paris  (1827-28),  where  De  Sacy  reigned  supreme 
among  Arabic  scholars.  He  then  returned  to  Strass- 
burg,  and  after  proving  his  capacity  as  a  lecturer, 
became  in  1834  extraordinary  and  in  1836  ordinary 
professor  of  theology.  So  famous  a  Biblical  critic 
and  theologian  hardly  needs  to  be  characterized. 
For  his  devoutness,  none  the  less  genuine  because  it 
finds  a  modern  expression,  it  is  enough  to  refer  to  his 
Addresses  to  Students  of  Theology  (1878);  for  his 
capacity  for  hard  work  to  his  monumental  edition  of 
Calvin.  Both  these  features  in  his  character  betoken 
his  German  origin,  while  his  clear  and  sometimes 
witty  style  is  explained  by  his  long  French  connexion. 
To  his  residence  in  Elsass  we  may  also  attribute  the 
width  of  his  range  as  a  theologian  and  the  comprehen- 
sive character  of  many  of  his  works.  Protestantism 
in  Elsass  needed  the  infusion  of  a  vigorous  but  not 
pedantic  scholarship,  and  the  great  country  to  which 
that  border-land  was  (till  1871)  united  deserved  such 
religious  help  as  a  man  like  Reuss  could  give.  This 
was  why  he  edited  (with  Colani)  the  Revue  de  thdologie^ 
and  (with  Baum  and  Cunitz)  the  first  twenty  volumes 
of  the  works  of  Calvin  ;  this  was  why  he  wrote  in  a 
clear  and  incisive  style,  sometimes  in  French,  some- 
times in  German,  such  works  as  the  Geschichte  der 
heil.  Schriften  N.  T.  (1842  ;  ed.  5,  1874),  the  Histoire 
de  la  theologie  chritienne  au  siecle  apostolique  (1852; 
ed.  3,  1864),  the  Histoire  du  canon  des  saiutes  Ecri- 


tures  (1862  ;  eel.  2,  1863),  the  new  French  translation 
of  the  Bible  with  commentary  (1874 — 1880),  and  the 
G  es  chic  Jit c  der  hcil.  Sckriften  A.  T.  (1881  — 1890). 

There  was  a  time  when  Eduard  Reuss  narrowly 
missed  becoming  a  hero  of  Old  Testament  criticism. 
It  was  in  1S34,  the  year  before  Vatke's  Biblical 
Theology  and  George's  Die  judiscJien  Feste  made  a 
sensation  in  the  theological  world.  Reuss  (not  as  yet 
appointed  a  professor)  was  lecturing  on  Old  Testament 
introduction  at  Strassburg.  He  had  already  come  to 
results  which  were  so  much  opposed  to  those  generally 
received  that  he  dared  not  put  them  forward  sys- 
tematically. But  what  he  did  divulge  then  or  after- 
wards fastened  itself  in  the  memory  of  two  Alsatian 
students  who  were  present — K.  II .  Graf  and  August 
Kayser.  The  germs  grew,  and  we  have  the  results  in 
Graf's  important  work  on  the  historical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  (1866)  and  Kayser's  on  "the  prc- 
Exilic  book  of  Israel's  primitive  history  and  its 
expansions"  (1874).  And  what  was  the  germ- idea 
deposited  by  Reuss  in  the  minds  of  his  students  ?  It 
came  to  him,  he  informs  us,  rather  as  an  intuition 
than  as  a  logical  conclusion,  and  it  was  nothing  less 
than  this — that  the  prophets  are  earlier  than  the 
Law,  and  the  Psalms  later  than  both.  From  the 
first,  we  are  told,  his  principal  object  was  to  find  a 
clue  to  the  development  of  Israelitish  religious  culture, 
so  as  to  make  its  historical  course  psychologically 
conceivable.  I  lis  early  youth  had  seen  the  ex- 
travagant rationalistic  exegesis  of  Paulus.     But  the 


178      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM, 

most  startling  of  all  miracles,  viz.  the  existence  of  the 
complete  Levitical  system  in  the  first  stage  of  the 
religious  education  of  Israel,  together  with  the 
absence  of  any  sign  that  the  greatest  prophets,  such 
as  Samuel  and  Elijah,  were  acquainted  with  it, 
seemed  to  mock  at  explanations.  The  prevalent 
critical  theories  appeared  in  many  points  to  run 
directly  counter  to  psychology,  nor  should  it  be 
overlooked  that  among  the  young  critic's  difficulties 
were  some  connected  with  the  Davidic  authorship 
of  psalms.  The  autobiographical  passage  in  which 
Reuss  has  recorded  all  this  will  be  found  in  the 
preface  to  the  History  of  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures (188 1 ),  and  the  twelve  theses  in  which  in  1833 
he  formulated  his  conclusions  in  a  volume  of  his 
great  Bible-work  {Lhistoire  sainte  et  la  lot,  1879,  PP- 
^35  24). 

That  Vatke's  difficult  work  produced  no  effect 
upon  a  lover  of  clearness  like  Reuss,  is  not  surprising. 
It  was  Graf's  book,  together  with  Kuenen's  Religion 
of  Israel,  which  stimulated  him  long  afterwards  to 
supplement  and  systematize  his  old  ideas.  The  fact, 
however,  that  Reuss  anticipated  both  Vatke  and 
Kuenen  is  of  some  significance.  For  he  was  not  a 
Hegelian  philosopher  like  the  one,  nor  did  he  take 
his  starting-point  in  the  historical  books  like  the 
other.  It  was  by  studying  the  legal  portions  of  the 
Pentateuch  that  the  young  Strassburg  critic  sought  a 
way  of  escape  from  the  unnatural  hypotheses  of  the 
day.     Three  such  men  as  Reuss,  Vatke,  and  Kuenen 


reuss.  179 

(to  mention  no  more),  reaching  the  same  result  by 
different  paths,  arc  not  likely  to  have  been  entirely 
mistaken.  And  now  to  return  to  Reuss's  early 
studies.  Later  on,  no  doubt,  he  completed  the  de- 
tailed criticisms  which  for  a  time  he  broke  off. 
But  he  completed  them  rather  for  himself  than 
for  the  great  world  of  critics  : — upon  the  whole,  we 
cannot  say  that  Reuss  has  left  a  deep  mark  on 
the  critical  movement.  What  he  has  effected  for 
the  Old  Testament  is  to  sum  up  and  popularize 
with  a  master's  hand  advanced  critical  results.  No 
French  student  can  afford  to  dispense  with  his  great 
work  on  the  Bible,  and  if  German  students  (or 
English  students  who  know  German)  can  afford  to 
disregard  his  critical  history  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  they  must  be  very  clever  indeed.  His 
judgments  may  not  always  commend  themselves  to 
us  (he  puts  Joel  and  the  Song  of  Songs  early),1  but 
less  than  any  one  except  Kucncn  can  he  be  called  a 
rash  and  inconsiderate  critic.  His  History  is  unique, 
and  a  necessary  companion  to  Kuenen's  masterly 
Inquiry. 

1  For  instance,  he  makes  Joel,  Job,  and  the  Song  of  Songs  pre- 
Exilic,  and  sees  no  need  for  disintegrating  either  Micah  or  Isa. 
xl. — lxvi.  His  hypothesis  on  the  Psalms,  though  right  in  some 
of  its  main  features,  seems  not  to  presuppose  much  detailed 
criticism.  It  should  be  added  that  Reuss  denied  the  existence 
of  Davidic  psalms  as  early  as  1839  (in  a  Halle  periodical). 
Also  that  in  18SS  he  published  a  tasteful  translation  of  the  Book 
of  Job,  with  a  brief  introduction,  both  well  adapted  for  the 
wider  public. 


180      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

The  moral  affinities  of  Reuss  are  rather  with 
Kuenen  than  with  Delitzsch.  It  was  sad  to  see  how 
despondent  the  latter  became  at  last,  and  how  regret- 
fully he  looked  back  to  the  days  of  his  youth.  The 
concessions  which  he  made  to  criticism  were  wrung 
from  him  by  a  sense  of  duty,  and  he  seems  to  have 
had  not  much  hope  that  his  own  synthesis  of  Church 
doctrine  and  modern  criticism  would  be  widely 
accepted.  Reuss  on  the  other  hand  had  a  keen 
sympathy  with  the  younger  generation ;  he  had 
nothing  to  "  concede,"  for  he  had  himself  always 
been  progressive.  I  saw  him  in  the  summer  of  1890 
in  his  country  home  near  Strassburg  full  of  life  and 
hope,  though  preparing  to  put  off  his  armour.  He 
believed  that  truth  was  sure  to  win,  and  looked  for- 
ward with  hope  to  the  constant  expansion  of  our 
knowledge.  In  this  faith  and  hope  Kuenen  too  lived 
and  died,  and  it  contributed  to  his  remarkable 
serenity.  Of  a  still  greater  scholar,  though  a  less 
notable  "  higher  critic  "  of  the  Old  Testament,  Paul  de 
Lagarde,  we  cannot  venture  to  say  as  much.  He  was 
not  (to  judge  from  appearances)  happy,  save  in  his 
work,  which  indeed  was  colossal.  It  was  well  for 
him  that  his  more  special  work  was  linguistic  and 
textual — studying  languages  and  editing  texts  from 
manuscripts.  As  soon  as  he  turned  his  eyes  away 
to  behold  mankind  and  its  perversities,  he  became 
subjective,  and  both  conceived  and  excited  number- 
less antipathies.  He  could  not  even  register  his 
linguistic     facts    and    theories    without    falling    into 


LAGARDE.  l8l 

sarcasm  and  railing  (sec  for  instance  that  brilliant 
treatise,  published  in  18S9,  the  Survey  of  the  Form- 
ation of  Nouns  in  Aramaic,  Arabic,  and  Hebrew)  ; 
much  less  could  he  avoid  this  in  speaking  of  things 
which  lay  even  nearer  to  his  heart — religion  and  the 
science  ( Wissenschaft)  of  religion.  This  being  the 
case,  it  is  not  surprising  that  in  his  opinions  both  on 
the  history  of  doctrine  and  on  "  higher "  critical 
problems  there  is  an  unusually  strong  subjective  and 
even  eccentric  element.  He  could  not  take  much 
account  of  the  opinions  of  others  ;  in  the  subjects 
referred  to  he  may  even  appear  to  have  rejected  the 
scientific  methods  of  others.  How  is  this  to  be 
accounted  for  ?  Lagarde  was  too  great,  too  self-denying 
a  man  for  us  to  impute  anything  like  a  mean  motive, 
and  his  services  to  that  "  lower  criticism  "  which  is  so 
essential  to  Biblical  study  (not  now  to  mention  his 
brilliant  intuitions  in  "  higher  criticism ")  are  so 
important  that  we  could  not  excuse  ourselves  for 
passing  such  painful  facts  over  altogether. 

The  true  explanation  may  be  that  which  has  been 
earnestly  advocated  by  the  pro-Rector  of  Gottingen 
University.  Lagarde's  self-consciousness  was  ab- 
normal ;  he  felt  and  spoke  as  a  prophet,  in  that  wide 
sense  of  the  term  according  to  which  our  own  Carlyle 
is  admittedly  a  prophet.  "  He  was  often  a  vox 
clamantis  in  deserto ;  but  he  did  not  allow  this  to 
disturb  him.  He  belonged  to  the  class  of  those  who 
penetrate  more  deeply  than  others  into  the  essence  of 
all  that  they  see,  but  who  are  tied  to  one  point  of 


1 82      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

view.  Such  men  are  powerful  but  subjective  natures  ; 
they  awaken  strong  sympathies  and  antipathies.  In 
all,  there  remains,  the  more  closely  we  observe  them, 
1  ein  Erdenrest,  zu  tragen  peinlich/  In  all,  the  point 
of  view  from  which  they  regard  the  universe  is  in 
reality  religious  ;  and — let  us  be  frank — the  moral 
standard,  which  is  valid  for  others,  is  incommensurable 
for  the  prophets.  They  are  seldom  happy  ;  '  der  Blick 
der  Schwermut  ist  ein  furchterlicher  Vorzug.'  They 
have  a  keener  eye  for  the  hurts  and  pains  of  humanity  ; 
therefore  they  call  for  a  radical  change  :  but  as  a 
compensation,  they  look  through  the  mists  of  earth 
into  the  region  of  the  sun  and  of  eternal  truth."1 
There  are  many  pages  of  Lagarde  which  must  be  read 
in  the  spirit  of  these  words,  if  we  are  to  think  of  him 
as  highly  as  we  could  wish.  With  all  his  peculiarities 
there  was  an  idealism  in  him  which  deserves 
veneration  ;  and  exaggerated  as  much  of  his  writing 
on  religion  may  be,  there  is  often  a  kernel  of  truth  in 
it  which  cannot  safely  be  disregarded.  He  did  well 
to  emphasize  the  truth  that  now,  as  in  the  days  of 
Luther  and  Calvin,  Biblical  criticism  was  a  great 
reforming  agency  for  theology  and  for  the  Church. 

Lagarde  was  born  at  Berlin,  Nov.  22,  1827  ;  he  died 
at  Gottingen,  Dec.  1891.  He  studied  at  Berlin  in 
1844 — 1846,  and  in  Halle  in  1846-47.  From  1855  to 
1866  he  carried  on  the  deepest  linguistic  studies  in 
the  intervals  of  scholastic  work  ;  at  last,  on  Ewald's 

1  Rede  gehalten  am  Sarge  des  Professors  Dr.  Paul  de  Lagarde 
am  25  Dec.  1891,  von  Ulrich  von  Wilamoivitz-Moellendorff,  p.  6. 


LAGARDE.  1S3 

decease,  he  was  appointed  to  a  chair  at  Gottingen. 
How  much  he  was  to  his  pupils  in  Semitic  philology, 
more  than  one  of  our  best  known  Hebraists  can  testify  ; 
he  was,  to  prepared  disciples,  a  great  teacher.  Was 
he  under  similar  obligations  himself  to  others  ? 
Certainly  not,  so  far  as  theology  proper  is  concerned. 
He  found  a  way  for  himself  to  the  "original  Gospel." 
But  to  some  great  scholars  and  teachers  he  owed 
much — to  Fried  rich  Rlickcrt  his  love  for  Eastern 
studies,  to  Jacob  Grimm  his  patriotic  romanticism,  to 
Karl  Lachmann  his  philological  tastes  and  methods. 
What  the  last-mentioned  scholar  undertook  for  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament,  Lagarde  aspired  to  do  for 
the  Old.  It  was  by  far  the  harder  task  of  the  two  ; 
it  involved  "the  brave  worker  in  those  labours  on 
the  Septuagint  text,  in  which,  when  struck  by  fatal 
sickness,  he  still  persisted."  x  Much  else  he  did  by  the 
way  ;  but  this  was  his  life's  work.  By  this,  as  well  as 
by  much  Hebrew  philology,  Lagarde  well  deserves 
to  be  styled  a  M  founder  of  Old  Testament  criticism."  2 
Lagarde's  judgments  on  points  of  "  higher  criticism  " 
will  be  found  chiefly  in  the  Symmicta,  (1S77 — 1880), 
the  Scmitica,  i.  (Critical  Notes  on  the  Book  of  Isaiah, 
&c,  1878),  the  Purim  (1887),  and  the  Mittheilungen 
(4  vols.,  1884 — 1 891).     I  content  myself  with  quoting 


1  The  last  part  of  his  Scptuaginta  Studicn  was  published  after 
his  death  by  Dr.  Rahlfs. 

-  In  the  Contemporary  Review  for  March  1889  (p.  393,  &c.) 
Prof.  Driver  has  given  a  full  and  instructive  account  of  some  of 
Lagarde's  more  recent  philological  works. 


1 84      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

an  utterance  of  Lagarde  on  the  origin  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch,  which  proves  (as  Kuenen  remarks1)  that  he 
"had  reached  important  points  of  agreement  with  the 
Leiden  critics  independently  of  their  help";  or  to  put 
it  shortly,  that,  equally  with  Vatke  and  the  others, 
he  is  one  of  the  founders  of  the  newer  Hexateuch 
criticism.  "  I  am  convinced  (and  the  conviction  has 
stood  the  testing  of  years)  that  not  a  few  portions  of 
the  Old  Testament  arose  in  the  age  of  Ezra,  who  with 
incomparably  better  right  than  Moses  may  be  called 
the  creator  of  Judaism.  I  consider  the  Elohist,  whose 
activity  extends  beyond  the  Pentateuch  (as  my  pupils 
were  aware  as  early  as  1864),  identical  with  the  editor 
of  the  Pentateuch,  and  to  be  either  Ezra  himself  or 
a  priest  of  the  second  temple  working  under  his 
direction.  The  abstract  is  everywhere  later  than  the 
concrete  ;  therefore  Elohim  (as  a  singular)  is  later  than 
Yahwe,  and  indeed  Elohim  by  itself  (without  suffix 
and  without  an  accompanying  Yahwe)  occurs  as  good 
as  never  in  prophets  of  admitted  antiquity  to  designate 
the  Supreme  Being.  Those  Israelites  who  wrote  the 
earlier  Elohistic  portions  of  the  Old  Testament, 
especially  the  Elohistic  psalms  composed  during  the 
Exile,  are  the  spiritual  fathers  of  those  who  pronounced 
Adonai  where  the  text  had  Yhwh.  If  this  '  perpetual 
Q'ri '  is  a  late  expression  of  a  false  piety,  so  too  is 
that    dread    of    pronouncing    the   name   of    Yahwe' 

1  See  Hexateuch  (transl.  Wicksteed),  Introd.  p.  xxxiii. 
Kuenen  also  mentions  similar  statements  of  Merx,  Prof,  Kirchen- 
zeitung  {or  1865,  No.  17. 


KUEN1  \.  185 

(transformed  into  the  one  God  of  the  world).  I  have 
always  been  surprised  that  no  one  has  yet  thought  of 
the  parallel  between  2  Kings  xxii.  8,  &c,  and  2  Esdr. 
viii.  1,  &c.  If  the  former  passage  means  that  our 
Deuteronomy  was  written  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  the 
latter  can  only  mean  that  the  Tora  as  a  whole 
proceeds  from  Ezra.  Besides,  the  Pentateuch,  or 
rather  the  Hexateuch  (for  the  work  includes  the  Book 
of  Joshua),  has  its  only  raison  d'etre  in  the  idea  of 
instructing  the  Jewish  colony  assembled  under  Ezra 
in  the  conditions  of  its  reoccupation  of  the  promised 
land.  Those  conditions  are  the  same  under  which  its 
ancestors  had  formerly  conquered  it  ;  hence  too  these 
ancestors  arc  feigned  to  have  had  the  same  disposition 
— especially  with  regard  to  the  'conubium' — which 
Ezra  so  rigorously  exemplified  in  his  community. 
The  works  of  the  Yahwist,  a  writer  of  the  prophetic 
school,  whose  spirit  doubtless  agreed  with  that  of  the 
speech  of  Stephen  (Acts  vii.) ;  of  the  older  Elohist, 
presumably  contemporary  with  the  Elohistic  psalms; 
and  of  the  Dcuteronomist  ;  together  perhaps  with 
other  isolated  passages,  were  worked  up  together  in 
his  own  spirit  by  the  younger  (hitherto  designated 
the  older)  Elohist,  Ezra.  Thus,  for  instance,  we  can 
explain  the  beginning  of  the  Pentateuch  as  intended 
to  contradict  the  Persian  cosmogony."  l 

Kuenen,  the  last  of  this  group  of  critics,  resembles 

1  Symmicta,  i.  55,  56.  For  Lagarde's  developed  views  on  the 
latter  point,  see  his  Purim  (p.  44),  and  cf.  my  Origin  of  tin* 
I'saltcr,  p.  283,  note  co. 


1 86      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Lagarde  in  little  except  in  his  love  of  truth  and  his 
want  of  sympathy  with  traditional  forms  of  Christian 
theology.  His  character  was  so  pure  and  noble  that 
I  ask  permission  to  dwell  upon  it ;  if  such  are  the 
fruits  of  criticism,  we  need  not  perhaps  augur  so  much 
evil  from  its  increased  prevalence.  To  have  known 
him,  is  a  privilege  ;  and  it  is  right  to  give  the  student 
(who  alas  !  cannot  now  see  him  in  the  flesh)  some 
faint  idea  of  what  he  was.  He  was  born,  Sept.  16, 
1828,  at  Haarlem,  where  his  father  was  an  apothecary.1 
At  the  age  of  fifteen,  upon  his  father's  death,  his 
studies  were  interrupted  ;  but  friends  were  at  last 
found  to  restore  him  to  his  school,  and  in  the  autumn 
of  1846  he  was  already  qualified  to  enter  the  university. 
It  was  Leiden  which  he  then  made  his  academic  home, 
and  at  Leiden  he  remained  to  the  day  of  his  death. 
The  names  of  Dutch  theologians  are  less  known  in 
England  than  they  ought  to  be,  but  that  of  Scholten 
the  dogmatic  theologian  is  not  unfamiliar  to  students 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel.2  To  Scholten  the  young  student 
was  more  indebted  than  to  any  other  member  of  the 
theological  faculty ;  through  him  Kuenen  became  a 
theologian,  and  not  merely  an  exegete  like  van  Hengel 
or  an  Orientalist  like  Juynboll.     I  have  ventured  to 

1  These  facts  are  from  C.  P.  Tiele's  Levensbericht  van 
Abraham  Kuenen  (Amsterdam,  1892),  and  P.  H.  Wicksteed's 
beautiful  sketch  in  the  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  July  1892.  For 
a  critical  estimate  of  Kuenen's  work,  see  Prof.  Toy  in  the  New 
World,  March  1892. 

2  See  Scholten,  Het  Evangelie  naar  Johannes  (1864;  in 
German,  1 867) ;  and  cf.  Watkins,  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  264,  &c, 


KUEN1  v  187 

say  elsewhere  that  one  of  Kuenen's  many  merits  is 
that  he  was  a  theologian  :  not  altogether  baseless  was 
the  dislike  expressed  by  Delitzsch  for  a  purely  critical 
theology.  We  must  remember  however  that  the 
Scholten  of  those  days  was  not,  either  in  New 
Testament  criticism  or  in  dogmatic  theology,  as  radical 
as  he  afterwards  became:  Scholten  and  his  pupil  went 
on  developing  side  by  side.  In  Semitic  philology 
Kucnen  was  equally  indebted  to  another  luminary  of 
that  day — Juynboll.  For  his  doctor's  thesis  (185  I )  he 
presented  an  edition  of  part  of  the  Arabic  version  of 
the  Samaritan  Genesis  (chaps,  i. — xxiv.),  and  was  soon 
after  appointed  to  succeed  Dozz  as  "  adjutor  interprets 
legati  Warneriani."  The  next  result  of  his  researches 
in  the  Leiden  library  was  an  edition  of  the  whole 
of  Genesis,  Exodus,  and  Leviticus  in  the  same 
version  (1854). 

But  Kuenen's  pleasant  position  on  the  Warner 
foundation  was  but  like  a  temporary  fellowship  :  his 
life's  work  as  a  teacher  had  yet  to  begin.  In  1853  nc 
became  extraordinary  professor  of  theology  (retain- 
ing his  "fellowship"  till  1855).  His  inaugural 
lecture  (on  the  theological  importance  of  the  study 
of  Hebrew  antiquity)  contained  this  remarkable 
passage — 

"  Nor  do  I  myself  believe  that  the  opinions  of  von 
Bohlen,  Yatke,  and  others  concerning  these  books  can 
be  reconciled  with  the  utterances  of  Jesus  and  the 
apostles.  But — to  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that  their 
ravings  have  already  been  rejected  by  all  the  critics  of 


1 88      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

any  note,  to  a  man — the  abuse  of  a  thing  should  not 
prohibit  us  from  using  it."  x 

In  1855  Kuenen  was  appointed  to  an  ordinary 
professorship,  and  that  same  year  he  married. 
Kuenen,  like  Lagarde,  had  a  close  intellectual 
companionship  with  his  wife,  and  his  bold  venture  in 
starting  from  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  in  his 
researches  into  the  religion  of  Israel  was  partly  due 
to  Mrs.  Kuenen's  sympathy.  Henceforth  there  are 
few  events  to  chronicle  in  this  modest  scholar's  life. 
He  took  part  in  all  academic  and  civic  movements, 
preached  (though  but  seldom),  and  lectured  with 
ability  (though,  like  Vatke,  not  with  uniform  success). 
In  1882  he  visited  England  to  deliver  the  Hibbert 
Lectures.  In  1883,  the  year  of  the  Oriental  Congress 
at  Leiden,  he  lost  his  wife  ;  in  1886,  his  attached  and 
ever-helpful  sister.  These  blows  told  upon  him,  and 
when  in  1887  he  was  attacked  by  a  distressing  disease, 
he  had  great  difficulty  in  resisting  it.  In  1891  he  was 
again  seized  with  painful  illness,  and  on  December  10 
he  departed  this  life  suddenly  but  peacefully  at  the 
age  of  sixty-three. 

Let  me  mention  some  of  the  moral  qualities  which 
distinguished  Kuenen  as  a  scholar.  Love  of  truth, 
thoroughness  in  work,  freedom  from  vanity  and 
personal  ambition,  generosity  in  praise,  considerate- 
ness  in  censure,  willingness  to  reconsider  opinions — 
all  these  can  be  traced  in  Kuenen's  writings.    Nor  was 

1  Quoted  bv  Wicksteed  in  his  sketch. 


ICU1.M   V  I89 

his  religion  of  a  commonplace  type.  Though  not 
fervid  like  that  of  Dclitzsch,  his  faith  was  firm,  serene, 
and  most  truly  reverent.  Reverence  indeed  was  one 
of  his  leading  characteristics.  In  his  most  contro- 
versial work,  he  asserts  the  claims  of  the  prophets  to 
our  reverence,  and  in  reviewing  Steinthal's  Ethics  he 
regrets  the  omission  of  reverence  in  that  philosopher's 
definition  of  the  religious  sentiment.1  Turning  now 
to  his  three  critical  works,  I  notice  first  of  all  that, 
when  rightly  understood,  he  is  not  so  alien  in  spirit  to 
progressive  Church  theologians  as  has  been  repre- 
sented. "  Take  the  first  edition  of  that  monument 
of  critical  scholarship,  the  Historico-critical  Inquiry 
(1861  — 1865),  and  see  how  moderate  its. results  are. 
And  now  compare  the  second  (part  1,  1885 — 1887  ; 
part  2,  1889).  Can  it  be  said  that  there  is  any  real 
extremeness  in  his  conclusions  ?  No  ;  Kucnen  is  still 
as  moderate  and  as  circumspect  as  ever,  but  his  eye 
for  facts  has  become  keener.  I  know  that  he  opposed 
the  old  supernaturalism,  and  that  he  himself  admits 
that  his  theological  convictions  may  have  reacted  on 
his  criticisms  ;  but  I  know  that  he  also  assures  us  that 
neither  his  method  nor  his  main  results  were  the 
outcome  of  his  theological  principles.  It  was  through 
critical  exegesis  that  he  came  to  the  conviction  that 
a  dogmatic  supcrnituralism  was  untenable,  and  the 
canons  of  critical  exegesis  are  independent  of  theo- 
logical dogma."  2 

1    TheologiscJi  Tijdsclirift,  1 SS6,  p.  307. 

1  From  my  notice  of  Kucnen,  Expositor^  I. in.  1 


190      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Nor  can  it  be  said  that  Kuenen's  second  great 
work,  the  Religion  of  Israel  (published  in  Dutch  in 
1869-70)  is  in  any  bad  sense  "naturalistic."  No 
doubt  he  considered  on  critical  grounds  that  the 
religion  of  Israel  was  but  one  among  other  religions 
{Religion  of  Israel,  i.  5).  But  he  would  have  fully 
admitted  that  the  difference  in  their  respective  degrees 
of  spiritual  nobility  between  the  higher  religion  of 
Israel  and  the  best  of  the  other  religions  of  antiquity 
was  so  great  as  to  amount  practically  to  a  difference 
of  kind.  All  that  was  good  both  in  the  religion  of 
Israel  and  in  the  other  religions  he  would  have 
ascribed  to  the  same  divine  source.  If  this  is  to  be  a 
"  naturalist,"  then  Kuenen  may  be  so  called.  I  should 
myself  have  preferred  to  call  him  a  psychologist,  and 
with  him  I  cannot  help  grouping  such  respected 
Church  theologians  as  Lightfoot  and  Westcott,  Bruce 
and  Davidson,  who  are  unqualified  psychologists  in 
exegesis,  whatever  may  be  their  attitude  towards  the 
results  of  the  psychological  method  in  criticism. 

I  am  not  however  writing  as  an  apologist  of  this 
able  book.  As  a  whole,  it  is  simply  unique  as  a 
specimen  of  the  right  historical  method  in  such  studies. 
But  in  details  one  may  often  differ  from  it.  Thus, 
Kuenen's  explanation  of  the  rise  of  spiritual  prophecy 
seems  to  others  besides  Matthew  Arnold  inadequate. 
But  Kuenen  was  perfectly  justified  in  offering  it. 
He  also  appears  to  me  deficient  in  insight  into  the 
higher  religious  ideas  of  the  Israelites  ;  one  may  still 
turn  for  stimulus  from  the  Religion  of  Israel  to  Ewald 


KUENEN.  191 

on  the  Prophets  and  on  the  Poets.  And  if  we  pass 
to  Kucncn's  third  work  (which  owes  its  inception  to 
the  late  Dr.  John  Muir),  called  The  Prophets  and 
Prophecy  in  Israel  (1877),  the  same  incomplete 
comprehension  of  religious  ideas  is  visible.  As  a 
controversial  treatise,  however,  the  work  has  merits  of 
the  highest  order.  The  only  question  is,  whether  the 
doctrine  which  he  opposes  might  not  have  been  left 
to  fall  of  itself,  or  rather  to  be  superseded  by  some- 
thing far  higher  and  deeper,  to  which  no  progressive 
theologian  would  withhold  his  assent.  More  than 
this  I  cannot  say  here.  Nor  can  I  venture  to  discuss 
either  the  Hibbert  Lectures  for  1882 l  or  the  long 
series  of  articles  (both  critical  investigations  and 
reviews  of  books)  contained  in  the  TheologiscJi 
TijdscJirift.  The  Lectures  show  how  lightly  Kuenen 
bore  his  learning,  while  the  articles  show  how  utterly 
removed  from  rashness  he  was,  and  (so  far  as  they 
deal  with  the  opinions  of  others)  how  mild  and 
gracious  he  could  be  to  those  from  whom  he  differed. 
One  delights  to  think  of  the  latter  characteristic. 
Fairness  one  expects  from  an  opponent,  but  gracious- 
ness — how  nearly  unknown  is  this  Christ-like  temper 
among  critics ! 

Lastly,  as  to  Kuencn's  place  in  the  critical  move- 
ment. There  is  in  many  respects  a  striking  contrast 
between  the  first  edition  of  the  Inquiry  (Ondcrzock) 

1  A  competent  estimate  of  the  Hibbert  LecturesYoA  been  given 
by  Prof.  Tiele  in  his  short  life  of  Kuenen.  and  by  Prof.  Toy  in 
his  article  on  Kuenen  in  the  New  World. 


192      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD    TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

and  the  second.1  In  Pentateuch  criticism  in  particular 
Kuenen's  position  changed  greatly  between  1861  and 
1885.  Upon  the  whole,  in  1861  he  adhered  to  what 
was  then  the  prevalent  school  of  criticism.  He  found 
in  the  Pentateuch  three  independent  writers,  all  pre- 
Exilic,  though  he  admitted  post-Deuteronomic  re- 
vision of  the  Levitical  legislation,  and  he  doubted 
whether  the  Levitical  laws  were  written  down  by  the 
same  hand  which  penned  the  connected  narratives. 
But  in  1862,  the  year  after  the  publication  of  Kuenen's 
first  volume,  appeared  Part  I.  of  Bishop  Colenso  on 
the  Hexateuch,  and  the  detailed  criticism  of  the  data 
of  the  GrundscJirift  contained  in  that  work  led 
Kuenen  to  re-examine  his  own  just  published  critical 
theories.  It  was  not  the  only  cause,  but  it  was  not 
the  least  important  one,  of  a  complete  change  in 
Kuenen's  opinion.2  Another  attack  on  the  Grund- 
scJirift (with  special  regard  to  Ex.  xxxv. — xl.)  was 
made  in  1862  by  the  Jewish  scholar  Dr.  J.  Popper, 
and  again  a  third  in  1866  by  K.  H.  Graf  in  his 
"epoch-making"  work  on  the  historical  books.  In 
1868  appeared  a  dissertation  by  W.  H.  Kosters  of 
Leiden,  which  showed  inductively  that  the  Deutero- 
nomist  was  not  acquainted  with  the  priestly 
narratives.       In     1869-70    Kuenen    thoroughly   com- 

1  Of  the  three  portions  already  published,  only  one  is  acces- 
sible in  English  {The  Hexateuch,  by  P.  H.  Wicksteed)  ;  all  have 
however  appeared  in  a  German  version  by  C.  Th.  M tiller. 

2  See  The  Hexateuch,  Introd.  p.  xiv,  &c,  Theol.  Tijdschrift, 
1870,  p,  398,  &c. 


KUENEN.  193 

mitted     himself    in     the    Religion    of    Israel    to    a 
Grafianism    revised    by  its    author    at    the    instance 
of    Kuenen,    and    subsequently,    in    the     Thcologisch 
Tijdschrift,  published   a  scries    of   papers,  which  are 
models  in   their  kind,  on  special  points  or  aspects  of 
the  new  theory.     Finally,  in    1885   appeared  the  first 
portion  of  the  new  edition  of  the  Inquiry.     This  was 
as  great  an  event  as  the  publication  of  the  Religion 
of  Israel.     Many  who,  like   myself,  were  fascinated 
with  the  view  of  Jewish  literature  and  history  given 
in  the  latter  work  must  have  felt,  with  me,  that  there 
were  unexplained  difficulties  in  Kucnen's  theory.      In 
the  revised  form  of   his  views  given    in    the    second 
edition    of  the    Inquiry  these  difficulties  were  much 
less  striking,  and    through   Kuenen  and  Wellhausen 
together  it  became  possible  even  for  cautious  English 
critics  to  come  over  to  the  "  advanced  n  school. 

Of  the  second  edition  of  this  critical  masterpiece 
three  portions  have  as  yet  appeared.  The  changes 
of  opinion  indicated  in  the  second  and  third  of  these 
are  less  striking  than  those  in  the  first,  but  careful 
students  will  notice  Kucnen's  great  increase  of 
critical  sensitiveness  in  dealing  with  the  prophetic 
literature.  A  survey  of  the  results  of  the  third 
portion  (called  Part  II.)  has  been  given  by  Mr. 
Montefiore  in  the  feivish  Quarterly  Rruiew,  1890, 
pp.  311 — 321.  I  have  a  keen  regret  in  learning  that 
the  fourth  portion  (part  3),  dealing  with  the  gnomic 
and  lyric  poetry,  was  not  fully  prepared  by  Kuenen 
for  the  press.     The  Religion  of  Israel  is  disappointing 


o 


194      FOUNDERS   OF  OLD  TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

in  its  treatment  of  this  section  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  Kuenen's  revised  opinions,  with  the  full  justifica- 
tion which  he  would  have  given  to  them,  would  have 
been  of  the  greatest  interest.  On  the  Psalter  par- 
ticularly one  could  have  wished  for  the  counsel  of 
this  wise  scholar.  Nor  can  one  help  deploring  that 
there  can  now  be  no  revised  and  corrected  edition  of 
his  noble  work  on  the  religion  of  Israel.  Pendent 
opera  interrupta. 

Kuenen,  more  than  any  one  else  of  his  own 
generation,  pointed  the  way  for  future  inquiry.  In 
particular,  he  saw,  first  of  all,  the  right  order  in 
the  stages  of  Israelitish  religion,  and  secondly,  the 
necessity  of  digging  deeper  foundations  of  criticism 
in  archaeological  research.  Wellhausen  and  Robert- 
son Smith  (leaders  and  representatives  of  Kuenen's 
juniors)  have  therefore  lost  more  than  can  be  said  in 
this  prince  of  critics.  But  at  this  point  I  must  break 
off.  Gladly  would  I  have  treated,  even  if  less  fully, 
of  Dillmann,  and  of  the  younger  German  and  Dutch 
scholars.     But  time  and  space  are  wanting. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

COLENSO  —  KALISCH  —  S.  DAVIDSON  —  ROWLAND 
WILLIAMS-— PEROWNE— A.  B.  DAVIDSON  (1862) 
— RUSSELL   MARTINEAU. 

We  have  already  seen  that  at  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century  a  Cambridge  professor  (H.  Lloyd) 
attempted  to  obtain  episcopal  and  academical 
sanction  for  a  translation  of  Eichhorn's  Introduction 
to  the  Old  Testament.  To  his  great  surprise  (but  not 
to  ours)  the  attempt  failed.  We  will  not  be  hard  on 
the  simple-hearted  professor's  rude  episcopal  corre- 
spondents ;  they  did  but  carry  out  the  policy  of 
restriction  which  then  prevailed  in  all  departments 
of  life,  and  which  had  many  and  various  causes. 
But  we  may  regret  the  consequences,  one  of  which 
was  the  failure  of  Lowth  and  Kcnnicott  to  produce 
a  succession  of  eminent  Hebrew  scholars.  What,  in 
fact  (so  all  but  a  few  born  linguists  would  feel),  was 
the  good  of  profound  researches  into  the  text  of  the 
Old  Testament,  when  historical  and  theological 
inferences  were  precluded  ?  And  though  contact 
with    German    thought    began    the    regeneration    of 


I96      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

English  theology  long  before  1862,  yet  neither  Hare, 
nor  Arnold,  nor  Jowett,  nor  even  Stanley,  could  (for 
want  of  Hebrew  scholarship  and  other  things)  be  the 
predestined  champion  of  reform  in  the  study  of  the 
Old  Testament.  At  length,  in  1862,  the  hour  came, 
and  the  man  ;  and,  strange  to  say,  the  champion  was 
a  bishop — and  though  neither  a  great  Hebrew  scholar, 
nor  a  critic  trained  in  historical  investigations,  he  was 
at  any  rate  free  from  the  influences  adverse  to  history 
which  proceeded  from  the  philosophy  of  Coleridge.  It 
was  John  William  Colenso  who  reopened  the  suspended 
intercourse  between  the  critical  students  of  England 
and  the  continent ;  for  I  shall  hardly  be  called  upon 
to  admit  that  the  timid  adhesion  of  Dr.  Samuel 
Davidson  in  1859  to  the  critical  analysis  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  some  not  very  clearly  defined  form 
entitles  him  to  a  higher  title  (at  least  in  the  present 
connexion)  than  that  of  precursor.  How  a  South 
African  bishop  was  enabled  to  become  more  than  this, 
is  a  matter  of  history.  I  must,  however  briefly, 
record  the  striking  facts.  It  would  be  unjust  to  pass 
over  this  brave  man,  who  in  the  teeth  of  opposition 
made  himself  a  genuine  critic,  and  who  won  his 
battle  more  completely  for  others  than  for  himself. 

We  owe  this  iconoclast,  reformer,  and  critic  to 
Cornwall:  he  was  born  at  St.  Austell's,  Jan.  24,  1814. 
It  would  have  been  strange  if  he  had  not  been 
religious  ;  from  first  to  last  no  cold,  sceptical  breath 
ruffled  the  surface  of  his  soul.  Early  difficulties 
awakened  a  sense  of  responsibility  and  strengthened 


CO  LEX  SO.  V)J 

his  moral  energy.  Through  friends  (whose  help  he 
repaid)  he  entered  Cambridge  university,  where  he 
took  all  but  the  very  highest  mathematical  honours, 
and  in  1837  became  fellow  of  St.  John's  College. 
From  1S36  to  1S41  he  filled  the  post  of  mathematical 
master  at  Harrow  (under  Longley),  and  then  returned 
to  his  college  as  tutor.  In  1841  — 1843  nc  brought  out 
his  very  successful  treatises  on  algebra  and  arithmetic, 
and  in  1846  retired  to  the  village-cure  of  Forncett 
St.  Mary's,  Norfolk,  where  he  divided  his  time 
between  his  parishioners  and  his  pupils.  In  1853  h° 
was  appointed  first  Bishop  of  Natal,  and  shortly 
before  his  consecration  dedicated  a  volume  of  village- 
sermons  to  F.  D.  Maurice,  avowedly  doing  so  as  a 
protest  against  the  blows  levelled  at  his  friend  by 
the  Record.  It  may  be  well  to  quote  the  words  in 
which  Maurice  expressed  his  thanks. 

"  I  should  convey  a  very  inadequate  impression  of 
my  own  feelings  of  the  generosity  and  courage  which 
your  words  manifest,  and  of  the  strength  and  hope 
which  they  imparted  to  me.  I  could  have  wished  that 
you  had  stifled  all  your  regard  for  me  rather  than 
run  this  risk.  Nevertheless,  I  do  so  thoroughly  and 
inwardly  believe  that  courage  is  the  quality  most 
needed  in  a  bishop,  and  especially  a  missionary 
bishop,  that  I  did  at  the  same  time  give  hearty 
thanks  to  God  that  lie  had  bestowed  such  a  measure 
of  it  upon  you."  ] 

1  Life  of  Maurice  y\\.  185 


I98      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

To  send  such  a  "  strong,  simple-hearted  "  Cornish- 
man  as  Colenso  to  Natal   might  seem   wise   to    the 
Colonial    Secretary   of  that   day,    and    the   Bishop's 
devoted  educational   work    among   the  Zulus  might 
appear  to  justify  the    appointment.      Colenso  how- 
ever had  a  deep  repugnance  both  to  oppression  and 
to  formulae  (whether  of  thought  or  of  action),  and 
here  lay  one  of  the  possible  germs  of  difficulty  in  his 
relations  to  others.    Soon  afterwards  came  the  disputes 
respecting  Kafir  polygamy,  which  I  refer  to  here,  be- 
cause the  state  of  things  with  which  Colenso  had  to 
deal    helped  to  give   him  a  historic  sense   of  some 
primitive  usages  in  ancient  Israel.     In  a  published 
letter   to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  he   took   a 
comprehensive  survey,  from  a  historical,  Biblical,  and 
practical  point  of  view,  of  the  question  of  the  position 
of  polygamists  with  regard  to  Christian  baptism.    He 
argued  with  great  force  in  favour  of  toleration.     The 
laws  of  the  Church  and  the  sayings  of  Christ  Himself 
ought,  he  said,  to  be  interpreted,  and  their  letter  if 
need    be   transgressed,    in    accordance    with    Christ's 
spirit.     This  view  was  opposed  by  Canon  (afterwards 
Bishop)  Callaway,  who  considered  Christianity  to  be 
a  "  sacred  deposit  of  doctrine,"  and  the  Church  to  be 
a  "divine  corporation  with  explicit  regulations  which 
cannot  be  modified."     Bishop  Colenso  made  up  his 
mind    after    he   had   been    only  ten    months   in    the 
colony.     This   rapidity  in  forming  a  conclusion  was 
characteristic.     Colenso  was,  as  his  subsequent  oppo- 
nent Bishop  Gray  said,  "  impetuous,"  but  he  was  not 


COLENSO.  199 

incapable  of  revising  his  decisions  (as  his  Pentateuch 
criticism  proves),  and  his  opinion  of  Kafir  polygamy 
was  at  any  rate  supported  by  the  high  authority  of 
Mr.  (since  Sir  Thcophilus)  Shepstone.1 

The  deep  questions  suggested  to  Colenso  by  his 
Zulu  friends  followed.  "  To  these  poor  lads  the 
Bishop  was  emphatically  Sobantu,  the  '  father  of  the 
people,'  but  as  he  was  their  teacher  and  guide,  so 
in  turn  he  was  stimulated  by  their  questions  to  the 
most  momentous  inquiries."  "  He  was  now  trans- 
lating the  Book  of  Genesis  for  human  beings  with 
the  docility  of  a  child,  but  with  the  reasoning  powers 
of  mature  age,  and  he  was  met  at  every  step  by  the 
point-blank  question,  '  Is  all  that  true  ?  '•  'My  heart,' 
he  says,  'answered  in  the  words  of  the  prophet,  Shall 
a  man  speak  lies  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ?  I  dared 
not  do  so.'     These  questions  had  set  him  free."  2 

It  is  easy  to  scoff  at  Colenso  for  giving  way  to  a 
Zulu — easy,  upon  condition  that  we  know  all  that 
the  Bishop  learned  through  his  Zulu,  and  ought  to 
have  been  taught  long  ago  by  his  professors  at 
Cambridge  ;  easy,  upon  condition  that  we  do  not 
realize  the  deep  gulf  which  at  that  time  existed 
between  English  and  German  theologians.  But  even 
the  scoffers  must  admire  the  energy  with  which  the 
Bishop  set   himself  to  study  Biblical  criticism   in  a 

1  Comp.  my  article,  "  Polygamy  in  Relation  to  Christian 
Baptism,"  Mission  Life,  April  1880. 

1  Sir  G.  W.  Cox,  hart.,  in  Diet,  of  Nat.  Biography,  art. 
"  Colenso." 


200      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD    TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

distant  colony.  For  him  it  was  no  merely  academic 
question,  but  one  of  intense  practicalness,  and  he 
cherished  the  belief  that  those  who  taught  the  Bible 
in  our  towns  and  villages  would  more  readily  listen 
to  a  working  clergyman  like  himself  than  to  an 
academic  recluse.  He  cannot,  I  think,  have  fully 
counted  the  cost  at  first,  but  he  never  withdrew  from 
the  work  because  of  its  increasing  magnitude,  and 
the  obloquy  which  it  brought  upon  him.  He  con- 
tinued his  examination  of  the  Hexateuch,  and  between 
1862  and  1865  came  to  conclusions  which,  though 
from  one  point  of  view  startlingly  negative,  were  yet 
from  another  moderate  even  to  a  fault. 

These  earlier  results  of  Bishop  Colenso  are  con- 
tained in  Parts  I. — V.  of  his  great  work.1  The  sensation 
which  they  produced  is  now  a  thing  of  the  past,  and 
one  can  do  full  justice  to  Colenso  without  being  harsh 
to  his  adversaries.  Looking  back  upon  the  contro- 
versy one  can  see  that  he  had  greatly  the  advantage 
in  dignity  of  bearing  ;  Colenso  never  lost  his  temper. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  was  much  both  in  the  facts 
which  he  made  known,  and  in  the  suddenness  and 
utter  frankness  with  which  he  published  them,  that 
could  not  help  irritating  so  prejudiced  a  body  as 
the  Anglican  clergy  of  that  day.  It  was  probably 
unwise  in  Colenso  to  bring  out  the  first  part  of  his 

1  A  reply  to  Part  V.  was  published  by  Dr.  Kay  under  the 
rather  absurd  title  Crisis  Hupfeldiana  (1865).  Kay  was  a 
learned  man  and  an  able  Hebraist,  but  did  not  know  the 
superiority  of  Hupfeld. 


COLE  N  SO.  20 1 

work  separately  ;  it  would  have  caused  but  «i  brief 
delay  to  have  combined  with  it  a  portion  of  his  more 
technical  criticism,  which  was  already  in  the  press. 
He  might  thus  have  strengthened  his  case  with  many 
fair-minded  readers,  and  stopped  the  mouth  of  many 
objectors.  But  iconoclasm  seemed  to  Colenso  the 
more  immediately  necessary  course,  and  it  may  be 
questioned  whether  a  born  reformer  such  as  Luther 
would  not  have  justified  him.  This  policy  cost  him 
however  the  good  opinion  of  many  friends  (including 
even  Maurice),  who  did  not  feel  the  necessity  of  nega- 
tive as  a  preliminary  to  sound  positive  criticism,  and 
as  the  Bishop  of  Natal  was  famous  for  his  arithmetic, 
the  materials  for  many  a  caustic  gibe  lay  ready  to 
hand.  It  is  now  time,  however,  to  speak  frankly  and 
seriously  respecting  Colenso's  work.  To  critics  of 
this  generation  Parts  II. — V.  present  little  of  special 
interest ;  the  details  may  be  had  elsewhere  in  a  better 
and  more  critical  form,  and  the  positive  conclusions, 
always  too  moderate  and  in  some  points  eccentric, 
are  now  antiquated.  But  Part  I.  will  remain  histori- 
cally important,  because  it  directed  the  attention  of 
the  most  progressive  critic  of  the  day  to  difficulties 
in  the  prevalent  theory  which  he  had  failed  to  reckon 
with.  Colenso,  as  Kuenen  somewhat  bluntly  ex- 
presses it,  "showed  that  the  very  documents  which 
most  expressly  put  themselves  forward  as  authentic, 
and  make  the  greatest  parade  of  accuracy,  are  in  reality 
the  most  unhistorical  of  all.  In  other  words,  it  is  just 
the    narratives    of  the    '  Grundschrift '    or    '  Book    of 


202      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Origins' which  turn  out  to  be  the  most  helpless  before 
his  criticism.  .  .  .  Colenso  himself  did  not  perceive 
the  legitimate  inferences  that  flowed  from  his  demon- 
strations; for  in  Parts  II. — V.  he  accepts  the  current 
opinion  as  to  the  date  and  character  of  the  '  Grund- 
schrift."'1 

Colenso's  sixth  part  appeared  in  187 1,  and  the 
seventh  in  1879.  In  these  he  takes  his  place  as  a 
critic  side  by  side  with  the  continental  scholars,  whose 
works  in  distant  Natal  he  sedulously  but  critically 
studied.  In  the  former  he  definitely  adopts  the  theory 
of  Graf,  assigning  the  Levitical  legislation  to  the  post- 
Exilic  period,  while  still  regarding  the  "  Elohistic 
narrative  "  as  a  work  of  the  age  of  Samuel,  if  not 
written  by  Samuel  himself.  In  the  latter  he  examines 
the  origin  of  a  large  part  of  the  Old  Testament  out- 
side the  Hexateuch,  and  considers  the  bearings  of 
the  results  on  the  question  of  the  Canon.  It  cannot 
however,  be  said  either  that  the  author  has  entirely 
thrown  off  the  weaknesses  which  marked  his  early 
attempts  at  critical  analysis,  or  that  he  shows  a  high 
degree  of  capacity  for  special  historical  criticism.2 
He  is  a  genuine  but  not  an  eminent  critic,  and  misses 
the  truth  on  that    very  important  point,  on  which 

1  The  Hexateuch,  Introd.  pp.  xv — xvii. 

2  Cf.  Maurice,  Life,  ii.  510:  "It  should  be  observed  that 
Colenso  has  not  the  least  studied  under  Niebuhr.  He  belongs .  .  . 
to  the  later  and  merely  negative  school  of  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  who 
scorned  Niebuhr  for  supposing  that  any  discoveries  could  be 
made  about  the  history  of  a  nation,  unless  there  were  contem- 
porary, or  nearly  contemporary,  testimony." 


COLENSO.  205 

Graf  himself  finally  gave  way — the  unity  of  the  laws 
and  narratives  of  the  Grundschrift}  And  yet,  as  we 
have  seen,  he  helped  Kuencn  at  a  turning-point  in 
his  path.  Must  we  not  remember  Lessing's  fine  say- 
ing that,  if  by  an  error  he  has  led  another  to  the 
discovery  of  a  truth,  he  has  deserved  as  well  of  the 
cause  of  truth  as  the  discoverer  himself? 

Of  the  brave  Bishop's  later  history  I  need  not  say 
much.  Though  by  no  means  a  negative  critic,  he 
was  not  qualified  to  do  thoroughly  sound  constructive 
work  either  in  historical  criticism  or  in  theoretic 
theology.  Let  us  be  thankful  for  all  that  he  did 
in  breaking  up  the  hard  soil,  and  not  quarrel  with 
him  for  his  limitations.'2  To  have  borne  so  many 
burdens  at  one  time  would  have  overpowered  any 
one  but  this  impetuous  and  yet  long-enduring  Cornish- 
man.  For  he  had  not  only  upon  him  the  cares  of  a 
reformer  of  Bible-study  in  England,  but  those  of  a 
missionary  bishop.  To  the  last  he  protected  the 
interests  of  his  Zulu  friends,  and  by  his  zealous  and 
conscientious  advocacy,  in  the  cases  of  Langalibalelc 
and  Cetshwayo,  of  a  policy  which  was  unpopular  in 
the  colony,  he  lost  many  of  those  whom  his  simple, 
noble  character  and  earnest  piety  had  brought  to  his 
side  among  the  colonists.     But  at  last  all  these  cares 

1  In  Part  VII,  Preface,  p.  xxxi,  however,  he  expressly  reserves 
his  final  judgment  in  graceful  deference  to  Kuenen. 

2  Among  his  other  works  his  work  on  Romans  (1861),  and  his 
New  Bible  Commentary  Critically  Examined  (1S71  — 1876),  have 
a  claim  to  be  mentioned.  Also  a  pamphlet  entitled  Wellhausen 
on  the  Composition  of  the  Hexateueh  (Land.  1878). 


204      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

and  anxieties  (especially  those  which  have  just  been 
mentioned)  began  to  tell  upon  the  strong  man.  After 
a  brief  illness,  he  passed  away  at  Bishopstowe,  Natal, 
June  20;  1883,  in  the  same  faith  in  which  he  had 
lived — a  faith  which  could  not  be  shaken  by  any 
discoveries  of  criticism,  because  it  was  directed  to 
the  great  spiritual  realities. 

It  was  one  of  Colenso's  deficiencies  as  a  historical 
critic  that  his  insight  had  not  been  quickened  by 
philosophical  study.  For  his  special  work  as  a  re- 
former this  may  indeed  have  been  no  disqualification  ; 
he  approached  a  "  momentous  "  subject  with  a  plain, 
practical,  characteristically  English  mind.  That  was 
not  the  case  with  an  eminent  scholar,  who  by  long 
residence  had  become  English,  but  who  could  never 
(even  had  he  wished  it)  have  disowned  his  German 
training,  M.  M.  Kalisch.  In  the  preface  to  Part  I.  of 
his  Leviticus  this  writer  expresses  the  hope  "  that  he 
has  aided  in  supporting  by  arguments  derived  from 
his  special  department  of  study  the  philosophical 
ideas  which  all  genuine  science  at  present  seems  eager 
to  establish,"  and,  so  far  from  wishing  to  become  a 
popular  reformer,  dissuades  all  who  cling  to  theological 
prejudice  from  reading  his  books.  That  Kalisch 
has  helped  to  "  found "  criticism  in  England  cannot 
however  be  doubted.  As  a  learned  Jew,  he  com- 
manded the  respect  of  many  who  disparaged  the 
self-trained  Colenso,  and  he  has  undoubtedly  pro- 
moted the  naturalization  of  foreign  critical  theories. 
We  may  claim  him  therefore  as  to  some  extent  an 


KALISCH.  205 

Englisli  scholar,  and  the  fine  qualities  of  his  character 
may  make  us  even  proud  to  welcome  him.  And 
who  was  Kalisch  ?  That  he  came  to  this  country  as 
a  political  refugee  in  1S48,  that  his  literary  labours, 
facilitated  by  the  munificence  of  the  Rothschilds, 
were  bravely  continued  to  the  last  amidst  the 
drawbacks  of  impaired  health,  and  that  he  died  in 
1885  at  the  somewhat  early  age  of  fifty-seven,  arc 
the  only  facts  of  his  outward  life  known  to  me.  But 
his  inner  life  is  revealed  to  us  in  his  books.  We  see 
there  that  he  was  more  than  a  scholar,  more  than  a 
Jewish  theologian — that  he  studied  deeper  questions 
than  the  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  had  wider 
interests  than  those  even  of  his  own  Oecumenical 
Jewish  Church.  This  is  especially  clear  in  the  latest 
of  his  books  {PatJi  and  Goal),  published  in  1880, 
which,  in  the  form  of  a  conversation  between  friends, 
discusses  the  old  problems  of  the  "  highest  good." 
To  a  student  the  value  of  Path  and  Goal  is  great 
from  its  sympathetic  exhibition  of  opposing  points 
of  view. 

No  object  was  so  dear  to  Kalisch  as  the  growth  of 
mutual  respect  and  sympathy  among  religionists  of 
different  schools,  and  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  host 
at  whose  house  the  interlocutors  of  the  conversation 
assemble,  and  who  appreciates  and  adopts  all  their 
highest  thoughts,  represents  Kalisch  himself.  He  is 
therefore  not  a  "  dry,  cold  rationalist,"  as  one  of  the 
newspapers  in  1885  described  him,  but  has  an  ideal 
akin  to  that  which  Prof.  Max  M  tiller  describes  at  the 


206      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

close  of  his  eloquent  Hibbert  Lectures}  Such  a  man 
cannot  be  altogether  an  unsympathetic  commentator 
on  the  Old  Testament. 

Kalisch  had  a  mind  sensitive  to  all  intellectual 
influences,  and  passed  through  several  stages  of 
development  as  an  exegete.  His  Exodus  (1855) 
would  now  be  reckoned  orthodox  and  conservative  ; 
his  Genesis  (1858)  distinctly  recognized  the  principles 
of  analytic  criticism.  The  latter  work  in  particular 
displays  a  fine  sympathetic  spirit  towards  the  nar- 
ratives of  Genesis  which  reminds  one  of  Eichhorn 
and  Ewald.  In  his  Leviticus  however  (2  vols.,  1867 — 
1872)  Kalisch  took  up  the  most  "  advanced  "  position 
both  in  criticism  and  in  theology.  With  his  later 
theology  I  have  here  no  concern,  but  on  the  critical 
questions  I  may  say  with  Kuenen  that  he  shows 
"  great  vigour  and  independence."  His  conclusion  is 
expressed  thus : — 

c<  We  trust  we  have  succeeded  in  demonstrating 
that  the  laws  of  Leviticus  in  reference  to  every 
particular  subject  are  of  later  origin  than  the  corre- 
sponding enactments  of  Deuteronomy.  We  have  at 
least  spared  no  pains  to  establish  this  point  ;  for 
upon  it  hinges  the  true  insight,  not  only  into  the 
composition  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  into  the  entire 
history  of  Hebrew  theology.  ...  In  every  case, 
Leviticus,  as  compared  with  Deuteronomy,  manifests 
a  most  decided   progress  in  hierarchical  power  and 

1  Cf.  Expositor,  1885  (2),  pp.  39°-~393. 


KALISCH.  207 

organization,  in  spiritual  depth  and  moral  culture  ; 
but  it  manifests  on  the  other  hand  a  no  less  decided 
decline  in  freedom  and  largeness  of  conception.  .  .  . 
Therefore  Leviticus  must  be  placed  later  than  the 
seventh  century — the  date  which  critics  almost  un- 
animously assign  to  Deuteronomy." 

"  The  laws  which  Ezekiel,  in  delineating  the 
restored  commonwealth,  propounds  with  respect  to 
the  rights  and  duties  of  priests,  the  sacrificial  service, 
and  the  festivals,  are  greatly  at  variance  with  those  of 
Leviticus.  ...  If,  in  the  prophet's  time,  the  com- 
mands of  Leviticus  had  existed,  or  had  been  known 
as  a  part  of  the  holy  "  Book  of  the  Law,"  he  would 
assuredly  not  have  ignored  and  overthrown  them  by 
substituting  others  devised  by  himself.  We  must 
therefore  conclude  that  the  Book  of  Leviticus  did 
not  exist,  or  had  at  least  no  divine  authority,  in  the 
earlier  years  of  the  Babylonian  captivity." 

"  The  destruction  both  of  the  northern  and  of  the 
southern  kingdom,  and  the  misery  of  the  people 
scattered  in  the  countries  of  the  Euphrates  and  the 
Tigris,  are  in  one  of  the  last  chapters  (xxvi.)  vividly 
and  most  accurately  described.  This  part  of  the 
book  therefore  leads  us  on  to  an  advanced  period  of 
the  Babylonian  rule." 

"  The  contemporaries  of  Nehemiah  (about  B.C 
440)  were  unacquainted  with  the  Law  of  Moses. 
When  the  people  heard  it  read,  they  wept,  exactly  as 
about  200  years  before,  King  Josiah  had  wept  when 
portions  of  Deuteronomy  were  read  to  him  ;  and  they 


208      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

were  grieved  for  the  same  reason — because  they  had 
not  lived  in  accordance  with  the  precepts  of  that 
Law." 

"  Leviticus  contains  ordinances  respecting  several 
institutions,  the  existence  or  full  development  of 
which  cannot  be  proved  until  long  after  the  captivity 
— such  as  the  sin-offerings  and  the  high-priesthood, 
the  Day  of  Atonement  and  the  Year  of  Jubilee, 
institutions  of  all  others  the  most  characteristic  or 
most  important.  Now  .  .  .  the  Day  of  Atonement 
was  unknown  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah  ;  and  as  the 
Year  of  Jubilee  was  associated  with  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  the  compilation  of  the  book  must  fall 
later  than  that  date ;  and  we  shall  probably  be  near 
the  truth  if,  considering  the  spirit  of  the  concluding 
chapter  on  votive  offerings  and  tithes,  we  place  the 
final  revision  of  Leviticus  and  of  the  Pentateuch  at 
about  B.C.  400."  1 

It  seemed  only  fair  to  give  this  record  of  a  modest 
scholar  who  is  in  some  danger  of  being  overlooked, 
partly  because  he  was  an  Israelite,  and  partly  because 
his  style  of  philology  is  not  altogether  that  to  which 
we  are  accustomed.2  As  a  companion  I  will  give 
him  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  who  has  also  had  his 
phases  of  opinion,  and  is  not  perhaps  now  estimated 
according  to  his  deserts.  This  venerable  scholar 
(born  in  1807)  has  been  severely  handled  by  a  recent 

1  Leviticus,  Part  II.,  pp.  637 — 639. 

2  Kalisch's  other  works  are  his  well-known  Hebrew  Grammar, 
and  his  Bible  Studies  011  Balaam  (1877)  and/ana/i  (1878). 


SAMUEL   DAVIDSON.  209 

writer,  whose  contention  is  that  Dr.  Davidson's 
change  of  critical  position  was  the  unfortunate  effect 
of  his  expulsion  from  his  professorship.1  I  confess 
I  do  not  see  why  Davidson,  like  Kuenen  and  like 
Delitzsch,  should  not,  upon  sufficient  cause,  change 
his  opinions,  and  the  charge  of  bias  seems  to  me  one 
which  might  reasonably  be  retorted  against  all  who 
hold  any  educational  office,  for  no  bias  perhaps  can 
be  greater  than  that  insensibly  produced  by  the 
endeavour  to  enter  sympathetically  into  the  minds  of 
pupils.  So  much  in  defence  of  one  whom  as  a  writer 
I  certainly  cannot  admire,  and  in  whom  as  a  re- 
searcher I  cannot  see  that  independence  which,  as  I 
imagine,  is  among  the  signs  of  a  first-rate  critic.2 
But  Dr.  Davidson  has  in  times  past  been  so  able  a 
theological  interpreter  between  Germany  and  England, 
and  to  an  advanced  age  has  shown  such  zeal  for 
truth,  that  I  cannot  omit  his  name  or  ignore  his 
services.  If  in  his  later  years  he  has  felt  the  bitter- 
ness of  isolation,  I  would  rather  give  him  pity  than 
censure.  Of  his  earlier  work  on  the  Old  Testament, 
Mr.  (now  Bishop)  Westcott  wrote  thus  to  the  author 
(in  1857  ?)  :  "  No  one  can  question  the  great  value  of 
your  Introduction.  I  know  no  English  work  on  the 
subject  which  can  be  compared  with  it  ;  and  I  doubt 

1  Watkins,  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  272,  &c. 
1  Among   Dr.   Davidson's  works  are,    The   Text  of  the  Old 
Testament  Considered;  with  a  Treatise  on  Sacred  Interpretation 

and  a  brief  Introduction  to  the  O.  T.  Books  and  the  Apocrypha, 
1S56  (ed.  2,  1859), and  An  Introduction  to  the  Old  Test. .critical, 
historical,  and  theological,  3  vols.,  1S62-63. 

P 


2IO      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

whether  any  German    Introduction  is  equally  com- 
plete." 1 

We  have  now  almost  reached  what  I  may  call  the 
modern  age  in  English  Bible-study,  but  a  few  names 
of  men  and  books  seem  still  to  require  mention.  First, 
that  of  Rowland  Williams  (1817 — 1870),  whom  Ewald, 
as  we  have  seen,  visited  at  Broadchalke.  The  story 
of  the  life  of  this  eminent  divine  is  "  the  history  of  an 
epoch  in  English  thought,"  and  it  is  noteworthy  that 
the  chief  literary  production  of  his  later  years  is  a 
work  on  the  Hebrew  prophets  (2  vols.,  1866 — 1871), 
which,  in  its  object,  as  Ewald  remarked  in  reviewing 
it,2  was  up  to  that  time  quite  unparalleled  in  English 
literature.  That  object  was,  not  merely  to  give  a 
better  translation,  but  to  ascertain  the  period  of  each 
separate  prophetic  writing,  and  to  study  the  prophetic 
ideas,  with  which  it  may  fairly  be  said  that  he  had 
a  natural  affinity.  The  author's  rearrangements  are 
chiefly  due  to  Ewald,  but  he  has  now  and  then  strik- 
ing critical  ideas  of  his  own  ;  in  philology,  he  is  weak. 
Of  Dr.  E.  H.  Perowne,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  be 
said  that  his  excellent  translation  of  the  Psalms  with 
commentary  (first  ed.,  1864 — 1868)  is  more  advanced 
in  its  philology  than  in  its  criticism  ;  how  indeed 
should  it  have  been  otherwise  at  that  date  ?  I  trust 
that  no  subsequent  critics  will  forget  the  debt 
which    England    owes  to  Dr.  Perowne,  not  only  for 

1  See  the  passage  in  full,  Facts,  Statements,  and  Explanations, 
by  Samuel  Davidson,  D.D.,  1857,  pp.  123-4. 

2  Gbtt.  gel.  Anzeigen,  Jan.  23,  1867. 


PEROWNE — A.    B,   DAVIDSON — MARTINEAU.      211 

this  useful  student's  book,  but  for  his  timely  criti- 
cisms of  Pusey's  Book  of  Daniel  {Contemporary  Re- 
vieWy  Jan.  1866),  and  in  more  "  modern  "  times  for  his 
defence  of  a  moderate  Pentateuch-criticism  (Contem- 
porary Review,  iSSS),  of  which  indeed  he  had  him- 
self in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary  given  a  fragmentary 
suggestion.  Recognition  is  also  due  to  this  scholar's 
learned  and  critical  but  inconclusive  article  "  Zech- 
ariah  "  [Bible  Dictionary),  in  which  more  than  once 
the  Exilic  origin  of  Isa.  xl. — lxvi.  is  assumed.  Mr. 
A.  B.  Davidson,  author  of  vol.  i.  of  a  learned  philo- 
logical commentary  on  Job  (Edinb.  1862),  deserves 
grateful  recognition  ;  the  reader  will  meet  him  again. 
Lastly,  Mr.  Russell  Martineau,  by  his  (too  few; 
critical  articles  in  the  old  Theological  Review  and  in 
the  translation  of  Ewald's  History  showed  his  acumen 
and  fine  scholarship,  and  contributed  to  prepare  the 
way  for  the  modern  period.1 

1  Dean  Stanley  can  alas  !  only  be  mentioned  in  a  footnote. 
It  was  his  main  work  to  excite  an  interest  in  the  picturesque 
accessories,  and  permanent  moral  interest,  of  Biblical  history. 
In  doing  this  he  availed  himself  largely  of  Ewald's  results. 
Even  his  most  original  work,  the  Sinai  and  Palestine  (1856,, 
has  numerous  references  to  this  -Meat  scholar. 


CHAPTER   X. 

THE  MODERN  PERIOD — ROBERTSON  SMITH — A.  B. 
DAVIDSON — BRIGGS — TOY — [SCHRADER]— SAYCE 
— KIRKPATRICK  —  RYLE  —  FRANCIS  BROWN — 
MOORE — WHITEHOUSE — G.  A.  SMITH — DUFF — 
FRIPP — ADDIS — MONTEFIORE — BEVAN. 

The  modern  period  may  be  opened  here  with  the 
name  of  W.  Robertson  Smith,  who  from  the  first 
gave  promise  of  becoming  the  most  brilliant  critic  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  English-speaking  countries. 
Aberdeen  university  never  turned  out  a  keener 
intellect,  and  with  admirable  forethought  his  friends 
there  bade  him  complete  his  training  under  A.  B. 
Davidson  (recently  appointed  professor)  at  the  Free 
Church  College  at  Edinburgh,  and  under  the  most 
learned  and  exacting  of  professors,  Paul  de  Lagarde 
at  Gottingen.  Physical  science  however  long  strove 
with  theology  for  this  able  student,  and  perhaps  it 
was  only  the  definite  offer  of  a  professorship  of 
Oriental  Languages  and  the  Old  Testament  at  the 
Free  Church  College  at  Aberdeen  that  prevented 
him  from  being  finally  enrolled  among  Scottish 
academical  teachers  of  physics.     At  any  rate,  it  was 


ROBERTSON   SMITH.  213 

a    great    advantage    for     Robertson    Smith    both    as 
a  special  Biblical  critic  and  as  a  theologian  to  have 
obtained   so    good    an    insight    into    the  methods   of 
physical   science,   and  among  other  things   into  the 
right  use   of  hypothesis   according  to  such    men  as 
Thomson    and    Tait.     Bold,   but    wisely    bold,    were 
those  who  appointed  so  young  a  man  (he  was  then 
twenty-four)  to    a    professorship.     But   our    Scottish 
friends  know  when  to  be  bold,  and  when   cautious. 
The  young  professor  came  of  a  good  stock  ;  attach- 
ment to  evangelical  religion  might  safely  be  presumed 
in   his   father's   son.     It  was  true  that   he  could  not 
have  passed  under  the  influence  of  Albrecht   Ritschl 
at    Gittingen   without  having  modified   some   of  his 
ideas  as  to  what   constituted  orthodoxy,  nor   under 
that  of  Lagarde  (who  said  that  he  "  accepted  every- 
thing that  was  proved,  but   nothing  else")  without 
having  become  increasingly  strict  in  criticizing  tra- 
ditional   narratives.     But  the  directors   of   the    Free 
Church    colleges    were    aware    of  the    necessity   of 
strengthening  the  scientific  (wissenscJiaftlich)  portion 
of  Scottish  theology,  and'  a  policy  of  generous  trust 
in  the  rising  generation  supplanted    that  of  obscur- 
antism and  distrust.      The    Bible  needed  to  be    re- 
examined   in    the    light  of   historical  research    (here 
Lagarde's    training    would    show    itself),    and     both 
dogmatics   and  apologetics  required  rcinterpretation 
and   revision   (here   the    profoundly   positive    Ritschl 
would  not  be  unhelpful).     In  other  words,  not  Hcng- 
stenberg  but  Tholuck  was  the  model  of  these  liberal- 


214      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

conservative  directors — Tholuck,  whom  another  Free 
Church  student  heard  say  shortly  before  his  death, 
"  The  more  liberal  view  of  inspiration  can  be  safely 
introduced  among  the  laity,  only  on  condition  that 
the  theologians  first  show  that  they  can  hold  it  with- 
out losing  the  power  and  purity  of  their  religious  life."' 
From  1870  to  188 1  Prof.  Robertson  Smith  worked 
at  Aberdeen.  Those  years  of  his  life  now  appear  so 
far  off,  and  the  evidence  relative  to  the  activities 
which  filled  them  has  become  so  historical,  that  I  can 
venture  to  speak  of  them.  As  a  lecturer,  he  not  only 
benefited  his  students  intellectually,  but  "settled 
them  in  the  Bible,  in  their  faith,  in  their  doctrines  "  ; 
as  a  helper  in  popular  education,  he  won  the  grateful 
regard  of  young  men  in  business ;  as  a  preacher,  he 
confirmed  his  hearers  in  evangelical  religion.  This 
was  not  his  whole  work,  however.  In  1875  he  began 
writing  for  the  ninth  edition  of  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica.  The  first  of  his  articles  is  headed 
"  Angel "  ;  the  second  "  Bible."  The  former  shows 
his  mastery  of  the  historico-exegetical  problems  of 
Biblical  theology  ;  the  second,  the  comprehensiveness 
of  his  learning  and  his  deep  critical  insight.  The 
composition  of  the  articles  "  Canticles  "  and  "  David  " 
also  comes  into  this  period — the  latter  of  which  in 
particular  is  a  model  of  sympathetic  Biblical  criti- 
cism. Nor  must  I  forget  contributions  to  the  British 
Quarterly  and  the  British  and  Foreign  Evangelical 
Review^  and  to  the  old  series  of  the  Expositor,  all  of 
which   impress  one  with  the  singular  steadiness  and 


ROBERTSON    SMITH.  2  I  5 

rapidity  of  this  scholar's  development,  and,  not  least, 
with  the  security  of  his  theological  position.  In  fact 
were  we  to  name  a  scholar  of  this  period  who  was 
qualified  to  be  professor  both  of  Old  Testament 
subjects  and  of  theology  in  its  broadest  aspects,  it 
would  be  Prof.  Robertson  Smith. 

In  1878  this  very  scholar  was  charged  with  serious 
offences  against  sound  doctrine  with  regard  to  the 
Scriptures.  It  was  a  historical  event  of  no  less 
moment  than  the  proceedings  against  Bishop  Colcnso 
in  England.  Into  the  various  phases  of  the  trial 
(which  was  of  course  a  purely  ecclesiastical  one)  I 
will  not  enter.1  They  were  followed  with  keen 
interest  by  the  friends  and  foes  of  criticism  both  in 
the  English-speaking  countries  and  in  Germany.  It  is 
said  that  Delitzsch,  though  not  as  far  advanced  criti- 
cally as  Robertson  Smith,  heartily  wished  him  success. 
But  the  wish  was  not  to  be  gratified.  The  Professor 
won  his  battle  for  others,  but  not  for  himself.  Undis- 
turbed by  this,  he  determined  to  appeal  to  the 
Scottish  laity,  and  in  the  winter  of  1 8S0  delivered  intro- 
ductory popular  lectures  on  Old  Testament  criticism 
to  large  audiences  at  Edinburgh  and  Glasgow.  These 
lectures  were  then  published  in  a  volume,  of  which  in 
fifteen  months  6,500  copies  were  sold.  In  the  follow- 
ing  winter   the    experiment  was    repeated   with    the 

1  The  various  publications  connected  with  the  trial  arc,  to  a 
great  extent,  of  permanent  interest.  See  especially  the  Pro- 
fessor's Answer  to  the  Form  of  Libel  now  before  the  Presbytery 
of  Aberdeen  (Edinb.,  David  Douglas,  1S78), 


2l6      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

same  success,  and  these  lectures  too  appeared  in 
book-form.  Need  I  say  that  these  two  volumes  are 
those  well-known  books,  The  Old  Testament  in  tlie 
Jewish  Church  and  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  the  former 
of  which  has  lately  (1892)  been  republished  in  a 
second,  enlarged  edition  ? 

It  is  probable  that  the  trial  instituted  in  1878  was 
not  wholly  unconnected  with  the  appearance  in  the 
same  year  of  that  brilliant  and  incisive  but,  as  English 
readers  cannot  help  thinking,  here  and  there  irreverent 
book,  Wellhausen's  Geschichte  Israels  (vol.  i.).  How- 
ever that  may  be,  it  is  no  secret  that  the  two  writers, 
Robertson  Smith  and  Wellhausen  are  (in  spite  of  their 
different  idiosyncrasies)  close  friends,1  and  that  they 
have  exchanged  many  suggestions  which  have  borne 
abundant  fruit.  In  Hexateuch  criticism,  no  doubt, 
the  indebtedness  is  chiefly  on  the  side  of  Robertson 
Smith,  who  has  been  (if  I  may  say  so)  the  most 
brilliant  exponent  of  his  friend's  theory,  not  of  course 
because  it  is  Wellhausen's  theory,  but  because  it  is 
truth.  It  ought  however  to  be  remembered  that, 
taking  this  scholar's  work  as  a  whole,  with  all  the 
minute  details  often  stowed  away  in  notes  or  in 
special  journals  (like  the  Journal  of  Philology),  it  is 
distinctly  original  work  of  a  high  class.  When 
Robertson  Smith  began  to  devote  himself  more 
especially  to  Arabic  studies,  it  was  for  the  immediate 
present  (not  in  the  long  run)  the  greatest  possible  loss 

1  The  preface  to  the  English  edition  of  Wellhausen's  book  was 
written  by  Prof.  W.  R,  Smith. 


ROBERTSON   SMITH.  217 

to  our  native  Biblical  criticism.  He  has  but  given  us 
specimens  of  what  he  can  do.  Excellent  as  the 
Encyclopedia  articles  arc,  they  arc  but  very  full 
summaries,  and  the  two  volumes  of  lectures  arc  after 
all  in  the  main  popular  introductions.  That  well- 
deserved  eulogy  which  a  conservative  writer  in  the 
Church  Quarterly  Review  (Oct.  1892)  has  given  to  one 
of  the  latter  would  certainly  not  be  repeated,  were 
Prof.  Robertson  Smith  to  publish  a  work  of  minute 
research,  from  the  point  of  view  actually  reached  by 
advanced  critics. 

Still,  in  spite  of  the  regrets  which  I  have  expressed, 
we  must  all  congratulate  Cambridge  on  its  adoption  of 
so  eminent  a  scholar.  It  was  in  1883  that  Robertson 
Smith  became  the  colleague  of  Wright  as  a  professor 
of  Arabic,  at  the  same  time  continuing  the  editorial 
labours  on  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica  which  he  began 
in  1 881.  Apart  from  his  Biblical  articles  in  this  work 
(note  especially  "Messiah,"  1883;  "Psalms,"  1886; 
and  the  latest  of  all,  "Zephaniah,"  1888),  the  results 
of  his  studies  are  mainly  embodied  in  two  important 
books,  which  prove  not  only  his  interest  in  Semitic 
research  in  general,  but  also  his  sense  that  future  Old 
Testament  studies  will  be  largely  affected  by  archaeo- 
logical investigations.  These  works  are — Kinship  and 
Marriage  in  Early  Arabia  (18S5),  and  Lectures  on  the 
Religion  of  the  Semites  (first  scries,  1889).  It  would 
carry  me  too  far  to  discuss  the  theories  of  these 
brilliant  and  original  volumes.  From  the  point  of 
view  of  an  Old  Testament  scholar,  who  has  not  made 


2l8      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

the  same  special  studies  as  the  author  and  Wellhausen, 
what  has  to  be  said  has  been  put  forward  with  due 
modesty  by  Karl  Budde  in  a  review  of  the  latter 
work.1  If  the  author  has  sometimes  based  a  bold 
theory  on  evidence  of  uncertain  value,  this  cannot 
obscure  the  many  results  which  are  in  a  high  degree 
probable,  and  if  he  now  and  then  gives  us  a  glimpse 
of  his  own  theological  system,  those  who  believe  in 
the  undying  importance  of  a  sound  theology,  and  in 
its  close  connexion  with  historical  facts,  cannot  blame 
him  for  this.  Nor  can  I  criticize  him  severely  for 
taking  no  account  of  Assyriological  researches.  It  was 
best  to  attack  the  subject  from  the  side  of  non-Assyrio- 
logical  Semitic  study ;  here  the  author  was  at  home, 
and  his  necessary  onesidedness  can  in  due  time  be 
corrected.  It  is  of  course  quite  another  thing  when, 
as  in  the  Prophets  of  Israel  (pp.  377,  401),  Prof. 
Robertson  Smith  betrays  a  degree  of  distrust  of 
Assyriology  which  further  study  of  the  subject  would 
even  in  1882  assuredly  have  dissipated.2 

1  Theol.  Liter aturzeitung,  Nov.  1,  1890  ;  cf.  the  review  (by  Mr. 
Lang?)  in  the  Speaker,  No.  1. 

2  "  Perhaps  with  an  extreme  of  scepticism  "  is  too  gentle  an 
expression  to  use  of  Gutschmid's  attack  on  the  Assyriologists, 
considering  the  elaborate  and  conclusive  reply  of  Schrader 
{Keilinschriften  tend  Geschichtsforschwig,  1878).  Nor  is  it 
reasonable  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  Schrader's  Assyriological 
explanation  of  the  names  of  deities  in  Am.  v.  26.  We  may  of 
course,  with  Wellhausen  {Die  Kleitien  Propheten,  1892),  obelize 
the  verse,  but  if  the  passage  is  genuine,  the  northern  Israelites 
in  the  time  of  Amos  worshipped  Assyrian  deities.  We  may 
suppose  that  they  sought  to  appease  the  anger  of  those  powerful 
gods,  comparing  Isa.  x.  4  (if  Lagarde's  reading  be  adopted). 


ROBERTSON    SMITH.  21   | 

It  was  a  great  satisfaction  to  receive  in  June  [892 
one's  old  favourite,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish 

Church,  in  a  revised  and  enlarged  form.  The  addi- 
tions are  most  conspicuous  in  that  part  of  Lecture 
V.  which  treats  of  the  historical  books  ;  a  new  lecture 
(XIII.)  is  also  introduced,  containing  a  general  sketch 
of  the  results  of  Hexatcuch  criticism,  and  the  greater 
part  of  the  lecture  on  the  Psalter  has  been  rewritten. 
Besides  this,  there  arc  two  fresh  appended  notes  of 
much  interest, — one  relating  to  the  text  of  1  Sam. 
xvii.,  the  other  to  the  question  of  Maccabxan  psalms 
in  Books  I. — III.  of  the  Psalter.  The  first  of  these 
I  shall  pass  over,  referring  to  a  record  of  my  first 
impressions  on  reading  the  note  in  the  Expositor, 
Aug.  1892,  pp.  156-7.  On  the  second,  I  venture  to 
offer  some  criticisms,  because  in  my  work  on  the 
Psalter  (1891)  I  professed  myself  unsatisfied  with 
the  theory  put  forward  to  account  for  psalms  like 
the  44th  in  the  very  able  article  "  Psalms"  {Enc. 
Brit.)  which  is  reproduced  in  Lect.  VII.  of  tin's 
volume. 

I  am,  I  think,  in  no  danger  of  being  an  unfair  critic 
of  Prof.  Robertson  Smith's  theories  on  the  Psalms, 
for  two  reasons.1  First,  because  in  my  own  conclu- 
sion as  to  the  period  of  the  Psalms,  I  have  to  a  large 
extent  his  support.  Secondly,  because  supposing 
that  his  theory  of  Pss.  xliv.,  Ixxiv.,  and  lxxix.  is 
correct,  I  am  thereby  enabled  to  strengthen  my  own 

1  The  following  criticism^  arc  taken,  with  but  little  alteration, 
from  my  art.  in  the  New  Worlds  Sept.  1S92, 


220       FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

published  view1  as  to  the  date  of  Isa.  lxiii.  7 — lxvi. 
Let   me   then    heartily   recommend,  not   only    Lect. 
VII.,  but  also  Note  D  on  pp.  437—440,  in  which  the 
theory  is  again  advocated  that  Pss.  xliv.,  lxxiv.,  and 
lxxix.  were  written  during  the  oppression  of  the  Jews 
by  Artaxerxes  Ochus  (about  350  B.C.).      According 
to    Professor   Robertson    Smith,  this  oppression   in- 
cluded one  important  event  of  which  no  direct  record 
has  survived,  viz.  the  burning  of  the  temple  (see  Ps. 
lxxiv.  7,   and    cf.   lxxix.    1).     He  remarks    that  our 
notices  of  Jewish  history  during  the  Persian  period 
are  extremely  fragmentary,  and  that  Josephus,  though 
he  does  not  mention  the  burning  of  the  temple  (as 
indeed    he  does  not  speak  of  the   Jewish   captivity 
under  Ochus),  certainly  does  mention  a  "  defilement  " 
of    the    temple    by    Bagoses   under    (as    it    seems) 
Artaxerxes  II.  (Ant.  xi.  7,  1).     Professor  Robertson 
Smith  says :   "  It  seems  to  me  that  the  objection  to 
placing   these  psalms  in  the  reign  of  Ochus  comes 
mainly  from  laying  too  much  weight  on  what  Josephus 
relates  about  Bagoses.     That  Bagoses  forced  his  way 
into  the  temple,  and  that  he  laid  a  tax  on  the  daily 
sacrifices,   is   certainly    not    enough    to    justify    the 
language  of  the  psalms.     But  for  this  whole  period 
Josephus   is  very   ill    informed,  .  .  .  and    the   whole 
Bagoses   story   looks    like   a    pragmatical    invention 
designed  partly  to  soften  the  catastrophe  of  the  Jews, 
and  partly  to  explain  it  by  the  sin  of  the  High  Priest. 

1  See  "Critical  Problems  of  the  Second  Part  of  Isaiah,"  part 
2,  in  the  Jewish  Quarterly  Review >,  October  1891. 


ROB1  RTSON    SMITH. 

The  important  fact  of  the  captivity  to  Hyrcania 
stands  on  quite  independent  evidence,  but  comes  to 
us  without  any  details.  The  captivity  implies  a 
revolt,  and  the  long  account  given  by  Diodorus  (xvi. 
40  fT.)  of  Ochus'  doings  in  Phoenicia  and  Egypt 
shows  how  that  ruthless  king  treated  rebels.  In 
Egypt  the  temples  were  pillaged  and  the  sacred 
books  carried  away  {ibid.  c.  51).  Why  should  we 
suppose  that  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  and  the 
synagogues  fared  better  ?  Such  sacrilege  was  the 
rule  in  Persian  warfare  ;  it  was  practised  by  Xerxes  in 
Greece  and  also  at  Babylon.  I  have  observed  in  the 
text  that  a  rising  of  the  Jews  at  this  period  could  not 
fail  to  take  a  theocratic  character,  and  that  the  war 
would  necessarily  appear  as  a  religious  war.  Certainly 
the  later  Jews  looked  on  the  Persians  as  persecutors  ; 
the  citation  from  Pseudo-Hec.  in  Jos.  c.  Ap.  i.  22, 
though  worthless  as  history,  is  good  evidence  for  this  ; 
and  it  is  also  probable  that  the  wars  under  Ochus 
form  the  historical  background  of  the  Book  of  Judith, 
and  that  the  name  Holophernes  is  taken  from  that 
of  a  general  of  Ochus,  who  took  a  prominent  part  in 
the  Egyptian  campaigns  "  (p.  439). 

It  will  be  seen  that  three  assumptions  are  made 
here.  The  first  is  that  Bagoses  is  the  same  as 
Bagoas, — the  name  of  the  ruthless  general  of  the  not 
less  ruthless  king,  Artaxerxes  Ochus.  (This  is  a  very 
easy  one,  though  the  character  of  Josephuss  Bagoses 
does  not  agree  with  that  of  Bagoas.)  The  second  is 
that  Josephus  almost  completely  transforms  the  true 


222      FOUNDERS   OF    OLD    TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

story  of  the  events,  out  of  regard  for  the  prejudices  of 
the  Jews,  who  could  not  understand  how  God  could 
have  permitted  His  own  faithful  people  to  fall  into 
such  misery,  and  His  own  temple  to  be  a  second  time 
polluted  and  burned  by  a  heathen  enemy.  The  third 
is  that  the  rising  of  the  Jews  (the  reality  of  which  is, 
I  think,  disputed  by  Professor  S.  R.  Kennedy  only) 
had  a  "  theocratic  character  "  and  a  religious  sanction. 
A  few  remarks  may  be  offered  on  these  assumptions. 
It  is  too  strong  a  statement  that  "  sacrilege  was  the 
rule  in  Persian  warfare,"  and  the  Jewish  temple  had 
no  images  in  it  to  irritate  a  faithful  worshipper  of 
Mazda.  I  admit,  however,  that  the  second  and  third 
Artaxerxes  were  "  reactionary  kings,"  who,  both 
morally  and  religiously,  "  compromised  the  purity  of 
Mazda-worship  "  {Bampton  Lectures,  p.  292) ;  and  if 
I  am  right  in  assigning  a  number  of  persecution 
psalms  (such  as  vi.,  vii.,  x.,  xi.,  and  xvii.)  to  the 
period  of  Persian  oppression  under  one  or  the  other 
of  these  kings,  it  is  not  a  great  step  further  to  assign 
Pss.  lxxiv.  and  lxxix.  to  that  dark  time.  Even  the 
consciousness  of  legal  righteousness  in  Ps.  xliv.  is 
perhaps  not  much  keener  than  that  in  Pss.  vii.  and 
xvii.  It  is  true  that  in  Isa.  lxiv.  5 — 7  (which  very 
probably  comes  from  the  same  period)  the  very 
deepest  contrition  for  sin  is  expressed,  but  the  great 
confession  of  sin  to  which  this  passage  belongs  may 
have  been  written  in  a  greater  depth  of  misery  than 
these  psalms.  To  the  references  to  Pseudo-Hecataeus 
and  to  Judith  not  much  weight  can  be  attached  ;  but 


ROBERTSON    SMITH.  223 


on  other  grounds  I  think  it  not  impossible  that  after 
glutting  his  revenge  on  Sidon,  Ochus  sent  his  general 
Bagoas  to  chastise  the  Jews  (cf.  Ju  leich,  Kleinasia- 
tischc  Studicn,  p.  176),  and  that  the  temple  was  not 
only  desecrated  but  destroyed.  I  should  be  inclined 
at  present  to  hold  out  as  regards  Ps.  xliv.,  for  I  can 
scarcely  believe  the  Jews  had  taken  so  prominent  a 
part  in  the  general  rebellion  as  to  account  for  Ps.  xliv. 
9.  But  as  regards  Pss.  lxxiv.  and  lxxix.,  the  objection 
to  the  theory  of  Ewald  (ed.  1)  and  Professor  Smith, 
which  I  expressed  in  Bampton  Lectures,  pp.  91,  92, 
102,  has  grown  much  feebler. 

It  may    be  said   that   Professor  Smith's  theory  is 
bold  and  imaginative.     So  it  is  ;  but  it  .is  not  on  this 
account   to    be  rejected.     Unimaginative  critics   like 
Hupfeld  are  also  very    insipid,  and   do  not    greatly 
promote  a  vivid   comprehension  of  the   meaning   of 
the   Psalms.      It    cannot    of  course    be    proved,   and 
Hitzig's  view  (suggested    by   a  passage  in   Solinus, 
xxxv.  6,  Mommsen)  that   it  was  Jericho,  not  Jeru- 
salem, which  suffered  so  much  under   Ochus,  is  not 
unworthy  of  attention.     But  it  would  be  a  great  boon 
to  be  able  to  explain  Ps.  lxxiv.  7,  lxxix.  1,  and  Isa. 
lxiv.  12,  without  having  to  suppose  that  the  liturgical 
poems  to  which  these  passages  belong  were  written 
to  commemorate    more    than   one  catastrophe.      On 
Professor    Smith's    other   critical    remarks    (directed 
against  theories  of  my  own)    I   may    be  brief.1     He 
appears  to  me  to  be  too  much  a  prey  to  the  love  of 

1  Comp.  Expositor,  An-.  1892,  p.  159. 


224      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD    TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

simplicity ;  why  psalms  of  the  Greek  age  should  not 
have  found  their  way  into  Books  I. — III.  is  not  to  me 
obvious,  in  spite  of  Professor  Smith's  remark  (p.  437) 
on  my  "complicated  hypothesis."     That  my  view  of 
Pss.  xlii.,  xliii.  is  "  fanciful,"  should  be  no  objection  to 
a  historical  student   like  the  author.     There  are,  as 
Milton  has  told  us,  two  kinds  of  fancy :  the  nobler 
kind    some    of    us     prefer    to    call    "  imagination." 
Professor   Smith,  as   we   have   seen,  is   himself  not 
devoid  of  this  priceless  gift,  without  which  there  is  no 
piecing  together  the  scattered  fragments  of  history,  no 
vivifying  the  lifeless  conclusions  of  a  cold  criticism. 
And   surely  it  is   hardly    right  to  dismiss  a  critical 
theory  too  positively  if  you  have  no  better  substitute 
to  propose.     I  myself  cling  less  to  my  own  views  on 
Pss.  xlv.  and  Ixxii.  than  to  many  other  parts  of  my 
system.    But  I  cannot  see  much  force  in  the  prejudiced 
arguments  brought  against  them  ;  nor  can  I  believe 
that  Ps.  Ixxii.  can  be  "  a  prayer  for  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  Davidic  dynasty  under  a  Messianic  king 
according  to  prophecy  "  (why  not  call  it  at  once  a 
purely  imaginative  royal  psalm  ? )  ;  nor  that  Ps.  xlv. 
is  most  easily  viewed  "  as  a  poem  of  the  old  kingdom." 
Nor  can  I  see  my  way  to  explain  Ps.  lxviii.  of  the 
hopes   created    by   the   catastrophe   of  the    Persian 
empire.     Verse  30  seems  clearly  to  show  that  when 
the   psalmist  wrote,  Egypt  was  a   powerful   empire, 
from  which  danger  to  Palestine  might  be  reasonably 
apprehended.1     These  however  are  but  minor  points, 

1  For  my  own  present  view  of  the  passage,  see  Journal  of 


A.    B.    D.W1DSON.  225 

compared  with  those  large  ones  on  which  this  scholar, 
more  completely  and  definitely  than  Prof.  Driver,  is 
on  my  side.  And  Prof.  Robertson  Smith  cannot  go 
back,  he  is  still  in  the  vanguard  of  critics. 

Of  Prof.  A.  B.  Davidson  this  can  perhaps  hardly 
be  said  ;  and  yet  no  one  has  done  more  to  "  found  " 
criticism,  at  least  in  Scotland,  than  this  eminent 
teacher.  It  is  a  nuble  but  a  difficult  position — that 
of  a  professor  of  Biblical  study  in  one  of  the  great 
Scottish  schools  of  theology, — noble,  because  he  has 
access  to  the  keenest  and  most  inquisitive  theological 
students  in  our  island,  and  difficult,  because  until  of 
late  evangelical  warmth  has  in  Scotland  been  com- 
bined with  singularly  strong  dogmatic  prejudices.  If 
conservative  reviewers  will  permit  me  to  say  so,  I 
venture  to  think  that  Dr.  Davidson  was  specially 
prepared  by  nature  and  by  training  for  this  great 
position.  Of  his  natural  gifts,  I  will  not  speak  now, 
because  my  small  personal  acquaintance  with  him, 
though  enough  to  give  me  a  special  interest  in  all 
that  he  writes,  is  not  sufficient  for  me  to  do  so  as  I 
could  wish.  Moreover,  one  of  Prof.  Davidson's  pupils, 
who  has  since  gone  to  a  higher  school,  has  already 
given  a  delicate  psychological  study  of  his  old  master, 
and  to  this  I  can  refer  the  reader.1  But  I  am  glad  to 
have  been  able  to  verify  to  some  slight  extent  much 

Biblical  Literature  (Boston,  U.S.A.),  June   1S92,  and  cf.  A 
to  Study  of  Criticism,  p   341.     A  possible  historical  situation  is 
suggested  by  Jos.,  Ant.,  xii.  3,  3. 

1  See  Elmslie's  study,  Expositor,  Jan.  iSSS. 


226       FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

of  what  Elmslie  has  said.  I  see  that  modesty,  that 
sense  of  the  many-sidedness  of  truth  and  of  the 
difficulties  inherent  in  all  systems,  that  disintegrating 
criticism,  that  latent  heat  which  corrects  the  criticism, 
that  love  of  great  spiritual  ideas.  I  see  too — and  I 
delight  to  see — that  Prof.  Davidson  has  a  theology  ; 
it  is  not  indeed  any  one  of  the  current  theologies,  it 
is  not  systematic,  nor  shut  up  in  formulae,  but  it 
colours  his  thinking,  and  if  all  his  too  few  sermons 
are  like  the  single  one  which  I  have  read  (not  heard), 
I  can  believe  that  he  can  sway  the  souls  of  all  who 
are  not  mere  church-goers  but  in  earnest  like  himself. 
Prof.  Davidson  is  evidently  a  great  teacher,  and  the 
effect  which  he  has  produced  proves  that  he  has  been 
seconded  by  generations  of  great-minded  students. 

These  Scottish  students,  who  have  owed  so  much 
to  their  teacher,  have,  as  it  seems,  partly  repaid  their 
debt.  What  else  can  be  the  reason  of  the  strange 
fact  which  I  am  about  to  mention  ?  His  early 
unfinished  work  on  Job  (1862)  showed  a  thorough 
philology  and  a  power  of  dramatic  presentation  which 
justified  the  highest  hopes.  But  not  until  188 1  did 
Prof.  Davidson  give  any  help  to  critical  students  at 
large  (I  refer  to  the  article  "  Job  "  in  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannicd)y  and  not  until  1884  did  he  publish  his 
excellent  volume  on  Job  in  the  modest  Cambridge 
Bible-series.  Then,  as  it  would  appear,  he  became 
bolder,  and  felt  sure  enough  about  some  solutions  to 
express  them  in  notices  of  books  (see  the  now  extinct 
theological  review  published  by  Free  Church  students, 


A.   l;.   i>.\\  [DSON.  22j 

and  the  very  useful  Critical  Review y  edited  by  Prof. 

Salmond).  And  only  last  year  we  have  received  a 
commentary  on  Ezekiel  in  the  same  scries,  which  is  a 
worthy  companion  to  its  predecessor.  Must  we  not, 
to  some  extent,  thank  the  students  of  New  College 
(from  Robertson  Smith's  time  onwards)  for  this 
diminished  suspense  of  judgment  ?  It  was  clearly- 
impossible  for  such  a  teacher  to  let  himself  be  dis- 
tanced by  his  pupils.  His  pupils,  in  fact,  had,  to 
adopt  Niebuhr's  figure,  become  his  "wings." 

That  in  his  hesitativeness  Prof.  Davidson  has  been 
true  to  his  nature,  I  do  not  doubt.  But  it  is  scarcely 
possible  for  all  of  us  to  accept  the  justification  of  his 
teacher  which  Elmslic  has  given  at  one  point  of  his 
sketch.1  From  a  "  higher  critic's  "  point  of  view,  Prof. 
Davidson  sacrifices  too  much  to  the  Philistines  in 
that  humorous  and  somewhat  cavalier  declaration 
which  Elmslie  quotes  on  p.  42  of  his  sketch.  There 
is  not  a  little  of  the  Philistine  in  every  untutored 
student  even  at  New  College,  and  those  teachers  who 
are  more  sensitive  than  Prof.  Davidson  to  the  less 
conspicuous  data  of  criticism  may  be  pardoned  -for 
regretting  a  gibe  which  in  almost  any  other  person 
they  would  meet  with  as  dry  and  cavalier  a  retort. 
There  is  however  much  to  be  said  in  favour  of  the 
book  on  Job  as  a  whole.  The  commentary  is  as 
thorough  as  under  the  limitations  of  the  scries  to 
which  it  belongs  it  could  well  be,  and  the  introduction, 

1  See  Expositor,  pp.  41 — 43. 


228      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

in  dealing  with  "  higher  criticism,"  puts  forward,  in  an 
excellent  form,  some  of  the  best  suggestions  which 
have  been  made.  The  objection  which  I  shall  have 
to  raise,  in  speaking  of  Prof.  Driver's  views  of  Job, 
does  not  in  the  least  affect  my  general  estimate 
of  the  book.  And  similarly  high  praise  is  due  to 
the  Ezekiel.  Both  works  are  based  upon  accurate 
philology,  though  the  text  critical  element  may  be 
hardly  advanced  enough  for  some.  In  the  Ezekiel 
however  the  writer  shows  his  grasp  of  a  subject 
which,  though  closely  connected  with,  is  theoretically 
separate  from  the  "  higher  criticism,"  viz.  Biblical 
theology.  And  upon  the  whole,  we  may  say  that  the 
best  results  of  modern  study  have  been  passed 
through  a  cool  and  critical  mind,  and  have  come  out 
in  a  form  such  as  all  students  can  appreciate.  There 
can  be  no  harder  book  than  Ezekiel  for  the  com- 
mentator, and  if  the  last  three  pages  of  the  introduction 
do  but  graze  the  surface  of  difficult  critical  problems, 
this  is  of  course  justified  by  the  nature  of  the  com- 
mentary. One  only  asks  why  this  able  scholar  has 
not  sought  more  opportunities  of  helping  forward 
critical  study.  He  is  himself  the  loser  by  his  ex- 
cessive caution.  For  how  can  that  introduction  to 
Biblical  theology,  which  we  are  eagerly  expecting 
from  him,  be  produced  without  the  aid  of  a  wisely 
bold  "  higher  criticism  "  ? x 

1  Prof.  Davidson's  other  works  are — Outlines  of  Hebrew 
Accentuation  (1861)  ;  A71  Introductory  Hebrew  Grammar  (ed. 
i,  1874)  ;   The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (p.  dry  but  very  able  work  ; 


BRIGGS — TOY. 

Another  eminent  Biblical  theologian,  who  may 
justly  claim  to  be  moderate  in  the  use  of  the  "higher 
criticism,"  is  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs.  A  more  eager 
worker  than  Prof.  Davidson,  he  fills  (one  may 
believe)  a  place  specially  marked  out  lor  him  in  his 
own  land.  We  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  may 
however  be  allowed  to  adopt  him,  since  his  books 
appeal  in  part  to  a  British  public,  and  he  contributes 
to  the  Oxford-printed  Anglo-American  Hebrew  Lex- 
icon. His  two  best-known  books — Biblical  Study 
(1883)  and  Messianic  PropJiccy  (1886) — display  a 
grasp  of  the  religious  as  well  as  historical  significance 
of  the  Old  Testament,  for  the  want  of  which  no 
learning  or  critical  keenness  could  atone.  And  with 
him  I  am  bound  to  group  another  American  critic  of 
another  school,  Prof.  C.  H.  Toy,  author  of  Judaism 
and  Christianity,  and  of  some  fine  critical  articles  on 
the  early  traditions  of  Israel  and  cognate  subjects  in 
the  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature.  Both  these  are 
Berlin  students,  and  worthily  promote  the  cause  of 
international  Bible-criticism. 

Of  individualities  there  is  happily  no  end.  This 
is  the  pledge  to  Old  Testament  critics  that  their 
science  will  constantly  renew  its  youth.  How 
different  is  Gesenius  from  Ewald,  Davidson  from 
Robertson    Smith,    Schrader    from    Sayce  !     Of   the 

1SS2).  I  may  add  that  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  has  also  written 
articles  on  Hebrews  in  the  old  Expositor.  See  also  Prof. 
Davidson's  articles  in  the  Expositor  on  Hosea  (1879),  the 
Second  Isaiah  (18S3-S4),  Amos  (1SS7),  and  Joel  (1888). 


230      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

two  latter  I  have  now  to  speak ;  for  Sayce  needs  a 
companion,  and  I  can  find  none  of  English  race. 
Both  are  eminent  Assyriologists,  though  the  scrupulous 
sobriety  of  the  former  hinders  him  from  the  often 
happy  divinations  of  the  latter.  And  lastly,  both 
have  been  compelled  to  drop  behind  as  Old  Testa- 
ment critics,  so  eager  and  rapid  has  been  the 
advance  of  recent  criticism.  In  Schrader's  career 
two  stages  may  be  noticed.  Like  Dillmann,  he  was 
a  scholar  of  Ewald,  and  was  early  drawn  to  the 
study  of  Ethiopic,  on  which  he  printed  a  prize 
dissertation  in  i860.  In  1863,  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
seven,  he  succeeded  Hitzig  at  Zurich,  and  published 
some  valuable  critical  studies  on  Gen.  i. — xi.  After 
this  the  second  stage  begins.  From  Ethiopic  studies 
he  not  unnaturally  passed  to  Assyrian.  In  1869  he 
brought  out  a  revision  of  De  Wette's  Old  Testament 
Introduction,  and  the  accuracy  of  his  statements 
respecting  Assyrian  matters  was  not  less  a  special 
feature  of  that  work  than  his  development  of  the 
older  Hexateuch  criticism.  In  1870  he  passed  to 
Giessen,  and  in  1873  to  Jena,  as  professor  of  theology. 
But  his  zeal  for  Assyrian  studies  could  not  be 
restrained.  In  1872  he  replied  convincingly  to 
Alfred  von  Gutschmid's  attack  upon  Assyriology, 
and  in  1875  had  the  proud  distinction  of  becoming 
the  first  professor  of  that  subject  in  Germany,  passing 
to  Berlin  university  as  the  colleague  of  Dillmann. 
His  best  known  work,  Die  Keilinschriften  mid  das 
Alte   Testament  (ed.   j,   1872;  ed.  2,  1883),  has  been 


SAYCE.  231 

translated  by  Prof.  Whitchousc,  whose  introduction 
contains  a  full  account  of  Schradcr's  former  critical 
theories  on  the  Hexatcuch. 

Of  such  an  old  friend  as  Prof.  A.  H.  Sayce  I  could 
not  speak  in  the  tone  of  criticism,  but  for  serious 
reasons.  In  the  past  I,  like  many  others,  have 
derived  much  stimulus  from  him,  and  in  obtaining  a 
working  acquaintance  with  Assyrian  philology  his 
advice  was  invaluable.  His  high  merits  are  incon- 
testable. He  has  been  an  Assyriologist  from  his 
youth,  and  though  he  is  ten  years  younger  than 
Schradcr,  he  was  able  in  1871-72  to  discuss  with 
him  on  equal  terms  the  question  of  the  name  of  the 
besieger  of  Samaria.1  He  is  probably  unsurpassed 
in  his  knowledge  of  the  data  of  the  inscriptions,  and 
I  am  sure  that  no  living  scholar  can  excel  him  in  his 
imaginative  sense  of  history,  and  in  his  use  of  the 
imagination  as  the  handmaid  of  discovery.  For  the 
latter  habit  I  have  heard  him  blamed,  but  it  would  be 
not  less  futile  to  blame  Schrader  for  his  sobriety.  If 
Sayce's  intuitions  are  hasty,  they  arc  also  brilliant. 
His  most  daring  hypotheses  have  again  and  again  in 
various  degrees  pointed  the  way  to  truth,  and  when 
this  has  not  been  the  case,  he  has  generally  corrected 
his  own  error.  And  yet  I  fear  that  there  is  one 
important  point  on  which,  not  for  the  first  time,  I 
must  remonstrate  with  him.  It  is  too  frequently  his 
habit    to  appeal,   not  to    Caesar,  but    to  the    people. 

1  See  articles  by  Sayce  and  Schrader,   TheoL  Studien  und 

Kritiken,  1871-72. 


232      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

In  his  historical  inferences  from  the  inscriptions  he 
often  stands,  for  good  or  for  evil,  alone.  In  spite  of 
this,  he  constantly  popularizes  his  results,  without 
indicating  whether  they  are  peculiar  to  himself  or 
not,  and  through  the  attractiveness  of  his  style  and 
the  concessions  which  he  makes  to  traditional  Biblical 
orthodoxy,  these  results  have  obtained  such  a  currency 
in  the  English-speaking  countries  that  they  are  at 
present  practically  almost  incontrovertible.  The  con- 
sequence is  that  our  popular  literature  on  the  Old 
Testament  is  (as  it  seems  to  me)  becoming  an  obstacle 
to  progress.  Bad  as  the  old  books  on  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  were,  they  at  any  rate  did  not  lay  claim  to 
any  special  degree  of  archaeological  accuracy.  Now 
however  all  this  is  changed.  I  hear  of  Prof.  Sayce 
everywhere  as  a  pillar  of  traditional  views  of  the 
Bible.  Not  to  quote  the  American  Sunday  School 
Times,  the  Newbery  House  Magazine,  the  Expository 
Times,  and  the  publications  of  the  Religious  Tract 
Society,  I  find  it  confidently  stated  that  Prof.  Sayce's 
Assyriological  discoveries  on  the  one  hand  and  Prof. 
Margoliouth's  Hebraistic  and  metrical  "  discoveries  " 
on  the  other,  were  "  recognized  at  every  hand  at  the 
late  Church  Congress"  (of  1892)  as  having  brought 
about  "  a  complete  turn  of  the  tide  against  the  views 
of  the  higher  critics."  l 

Now  I  do  not  for  a  moment  accept  the  parallelism 
put   forward    in    this    quotation.     To     compare    his 

1  Letter  by  W.  W.  Smyth,  Spectator,  Oct.  15,  1892, 


5AYCE.  233 

results  in  the  mass  with  those  of  Prof.  Margoliouth's 
inaugural  lecture  and  subsequent  essays,  is  absurd. 
The  present  Laudian  Professor  is  a  Hebraist  from 
whom  brilliant  results  may  be  expected,  but  these  arc 
as  yet  in  the  future,  whereas  Prof.  Saycc  can  look 
back  upon  a  long  series  of  services  to  the  study  of 
the  Bible.  It  is  a  pleasure  to  feel  that  one  is  at  all 
a  fellow-labourer  with  him — a  pleasure  to  express  a 
general  assent  to  much  that  he  has  lately  written 
(sec  e.g.  his  article  in  the  Coiitemp vrary  Review,  Sept. 
1890).  But  one  must  regret,  not  less  for  his  own 
sake  than  for  the  cause  of  progress,  that  he  should 
popularize  so  many  questionable  theories,  and  that 
in  doing  so  he  should  make  so  many  concessions  to 
a  most  uncritical  form  of  traditional  theology. 
There  was  a  time  when  he  was  not  ashamed  to  be 
called  a  friend  by  the  unpopular  Bishop  Colcnso  ;T  a 
time  when  he  tried  his  skill  on  problems  of  the 
"higher  criticism"  ;  a  time,  not  so  far  distant,  when 
he  delivered  the  Hibbcrt  Lectures.  Now  however 
I  find  him  coupled  as  an  orthodox  apologist  with  one 
of  the  most  uncritical  of  living  theologians.  Now 
too  I  find  him  repudiating  any  favour  for  the  long- 
tested  methods  of  "  higher  criticism,"  and  adopting 
that  unfortunate  error  of  conservative  theologians 
which  identifies  the  "higher  criticism"  with  the  con- 
clusions of  this  or  that  writer,  perhaps  even  of  one 
who    lived    many    years    since.      This    course     Prof. 

1  See  Colenso.  The  Pentateuch,  &C,  Tart  VI.,  PreC  p.  \x\ii. 


234      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Sayce  has  taken,  for  instance,  in  two  articles  in  a 
journal  which  discharges  in  many  respects  useful 
functions,  the  Expository  Times  (Dec.  1891,  Oct. 
1892).  He  may  tell  me  that  he  was  not  writing  for 
scholars,  but  he  was  writing  for  those  who  may  yet 
become  scholars,  who  at  any  rate  claim  to  express  an 
opinion,  and  have  it  in  their  power  to  hinder  progress. 
I  may  seem  to  be  too  fond  of  qualifying  ;  but 
positive  and  peremptory  assertions,  even  when  speak- 
ing pro  domo,  are  not  to  my  taste.  I  fully  admit  that 
until  Schrader  and  Sayce  arose,  Old  Testament 
critics  did  not  pay  much  attention  to  Assyriology. 
This  however  was  not  because  they  held  a  narrow 
theory  of  criticism.  From  the  time  of  Graf  (1866) 
onwards  the  necessity  of  archaeological  detail-criticism 
has  been  fully  admitted  by  Hexateuch  critics,  and 
this  admission  implies  a  gradual  change  in  the  habit 
of  mind  of  Old  Testament  critics  in  general.  Not 
that  literary  analysis  is  in  the  least  disparaged,  but 
the  time  has  come,  as  even  Colenso,  quite  apart  from 
Graf,  dimly  felt  in  1862,  for  a  greater  infusion  of 
historical  "  realism "  into  the  critic's  work.  Since 
1866,  every  ten  years  has  shown  an  increase  of  this 
spirit,  and  though  a  vast  amount  of  work  remains  to 
be  done  (we  want  the  help  of  friendly  and  critical 
archaeologists),  a  good  beginning  has  been  made.  No 
single  worker  has  helped  so  much  as  Prof.  Robertson 
Smith  (working  on  Wellhausen's  lines),  and  if  Prof. 
Sayce  had  more  time,  and  could  and  would  co-operate 
with   the    "  higher    critics,"    he   might    himself    give 


5A1 

invaluable  assistance.  In  1873-74  he  was  still 
friendly  to  critical  analysis,  though  he  very  rightly 
desired  the  analysts  to  revise  and,  if  necessary, 
modify  their  results  in  accordance  with  Assyriological 
data.  He  himself  offered  provisional  critical  con- 
clusions with  regard  to  Isa.  xxxvi. — xxxix.,  and  the 
Deluge-narratives  and  the  "Ethnological  Table"  in 
Genesis.1  I  fear  that  his  suggestions  on  Gen.  x.  have 
not  been  considered  by  the  analysts  (at  least  in  any 
published  work),  while  those  which  he  put  forward 
on  the  two  other  passages  have  failed  to  win  accept- 
ance. And  Prof.  Sayce  himself  has  no  doubt  by 
this  time  given  up  his  old  view  on  the  date  of  the 
Hebrew  Deluge-stories. 

What  Prof.  Sayce  should,  in  my  opinion,  have 
done  in  the  semi-popular  articles  referred  to,  was  to 
place  himself  frankly  where  he  stood  in  1873-74,  and 
admit  once  more  that  Assyriology  "  demonstrated 
the  untenability  of  the  traditional  view  of  Genesis," 
and  "  confirms  the  [main]  conclusions  of  scientific 
criticism."  If  he  had  further  said  that  some  critics 
needed  to  be  stirred  up  to  greater  zeal  for  archaeol< 
— that  Kuenen  for  instance  had  not  given  enough 
attention  to  Assyriology,  and  that  Wellhauscn  and 
Robertson  Smith  had  in  former  years  (like  other  Sem- 
itic scholars)  displayed  an  excessive  distrust  of  that 
study,  I  should  have  had  no  objection.  But  to  bring 
such  unfair   charges  against  the  "higher  critics,"  and 

1  See  Theological  Review,  1873,  PP-  T5~ V-  J64    377;   1874, 

pp.  59—69. 


236      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

to  speak  so  disparagingly  of  their  (supposed)  methods, 
and  moreover  to  make  such  ill-founded  statements 
as  to  the  relation  between  Assyriology  and  the  Book 
of  Genesis  as  he  has  of  late  years  done,  conduces  to 
the  spread  of  theological  prejudice  and  historical  error. 
To  oppose  Prof.  Sayce  (not  indeed  as  an  Assyri- 
ologist,  nor  as  an  archaeological  student,  but  as  a 
popularizer  of  questionable  theories  and  unfair 
accusations)  is  at  present,  I  know,  a  difficult  task, 
so  far  as  England  and  America  are  concerned.  Not 
merely  for  theological  reasons,  but  because  the 
archaeological  interest  among  us  has  become  so 
strong.  As  Prof.  Sayce  knows,  I  have  always  been 
on  the  side  of  archaeology.  But  I  conceive  that  one 
ought  not  to  favour  archaeology  at  the  expense  of 
criticism.  Old  Testament  criticism  is  a  genuine 
historical  movement,  and  those  who  have  produced 
it  have  gone  on  constantly  widening  their  range  and 
improving  their  methods.  To  speak  as  disparagingly 
of  Old  Testament  critics  as  Prof.  Ramsay  has  lately 
done  of  Homeric  critics,1  is,  I  venture  to  submit, 
highly  unjust,  and  calculated  to  produce  a  quite 
unnecessary  partisanship.  That  very  able  explorer 
may  or  may  not  be  altogether  right  in  drawing  a  line 
between  the  non-archaeological  Homeric  criticism  of 
the  past  and  the  archaeological  of  the  future.  But 
even  if  he  be  right,  there  is  no  true  analogy  between 
this    case   and    that    of    Old    Testament    criticism. 

1  See  his  art.,  "  Mr.  Gladstone  on    Homer,"  The  Bookman, 
1 892  ;  cf.  Gardner,  New  Chapters  in  Greek  History  ( 1 89 1 ). 


SAY<  l  . 

Much  evil  has  been  wrought  by  the  mistaken  use  of 
analogy,  and  for  the  sake  of  historical  truth  let  those 
who  read  Prof.  Sayce  be  on  their  guard. 

Let  me  take  a  crucial  instance.  "Recent  dis- 
covery," says  Prof.  Ramsay,  "  is  bringing  home  to  us 
the  possibility  that  after  all  Agamemnon  may  once 
have  lived.  .  .  .  We  may  prefer  to  explain  the 
origin  of  the  'tale  of  Troy  divine'  in  some  other  way, 
and  not  as  the  history  of  actual  events ;  but  we  must 
now  treat  the  view  that  it  is  a  fundamentally  true 
tale  as  conceivably  right  ;  and  there  is  a  widely- 
spread  and  growing  feeling  that  in  the  immediate 
future  the  attitude  towards  the  Homeric  poems  which 
is  least  erroneous  and  most  likely  to  lead  to  further 
discovery  is  that  they  preserve  a  picture  of  a  period 
of  history  which  did  once  exist."  It  would  be  natural 
for  an  unwary  student  to  assume  that  the  same 
possibility  or  probability  exists  in  the  case  of  the 
story  of  Abraham.  Prof.  Sayce,  in  his  well-known 
work  Fresh  Light  from  the  Ancient  Monuments  (pp. 
53 — 59),  even  speaks  as  if  those  details  in  the  story  to 
which  he  refers  were,  beyond  doubt,  strictly  historical, 
and  as  if  "  the  whole  account"  of  the  campaign  of 
Chcdorlaomcr  and  his  allies,  and  the  surprise  of  the 
invaders  by  Abraham  and  his  confederates,  were 
"extracted  from  the  Babylonian  archives."  lie  also 
gives  "an  approximate  elate  for  the  rescue  of  Lot  by 
Abraham,  and  consequently  for  the  age  of  Abraham 
himself."  Still  more  recently  he  has  even  assured  us 
that  "  in  every  point  the  history  of   Mclchizedck  in 


238      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Gen.  xiv.  receives  confirmation." 1  I  confess  that  I 
am  astonished  at  this.  So  far  as  regards  the  facts 
mentioned  in  Fresh  Light,  pp.  55-56,  they  have  long 
since  been  absorbed  by  Old  Testament  critics,  by 
moderate  critics  like  Dillmann  in  one  way,  by  ad- 
vanced critics  like  Kuenen  in  another.2  And  what 
difficulty  need  be  caused  by  the  facts  derived  by 
Prof.  Sayce  from  the  priceless  Tell  el-Amarna 
tablets  ?  A  distinction  must  however  be  drawn 
between  the  certain  and  the  uncertain  facts.  The 
reported  "discovery  of  transcendent  importance" 
relative  to  Gen.  xiv.  18  sinks  upon  examination  into 

1  Expository  Times,  Oct.  1892,  p.  18  ;  cf.  also  Records  of  the 
Past,  v.  60 — 65,  and  articles  by  Sayce  in  Hebraic  a  and  the 
Newbery  House  Magazine.  The  Guardian,  in  a  review  of 
Fripp's  Genesis  (Nov.  16,  1892)  unsuspiciously  adopts  Prof. 
Sayce's  results  and  inferences.  I  have  no  controversial  animus, 
and  simply  desire  a  critical  treatment  of  the  facts.  Comp. 
Winckler's  translations  in  Zt.f.  Assyriologie,  Sept.  1891.  Comp. 
also  Halevy,  Recherche s  bibliques,  last  fascicule,  p.  727  ;  Morris 
Jastrow,  Zt.  f.  Assyriologie,  1892,  heft  3,  and  Journal  of  Biblical 
Literature,  1892,  Part  I.  (regretting  that  this  distinguished 
u  scholar  "  should  be  "  doing  a  mischief  of  incalculable  extent  "). 

2  Dillmann  is  of  opinion  that  the  narrative  in  Gen.  xiv.  (yv. 
!  s — 20  excepted)  contains  facts  derived  from  a  foreign  source. 
But  this  must  be  qualified  by  what  he  says  of  the  Abraham  of 
Genesis  elsewhere  (see  introd.  to  Gen.  xii.  &c).  The  Melchize- 
dek-story  is  a  justification  of  the  practice  of  paying  tithes  to  the 
priestly  tribe,  but  the  figure  of  Melchizedek  is  probably  derived 
from  some  popular  legend.  Kuenen  thinks  that  Gen.  xiv.  is  a 
fragment  of  a  post-Exilian  version  of  Abram's  life,  a  midrash, 
such  as  the  Chronicler  likewise  had  among  his  authorities 
(2  Chron.  xxiv.  27),  and  adopts  E.  Meyer's  view  that  the  historical 
facts  of  the  setting  of  the  story  were  obtained  by  the  author  of 
the  midrash  in  Babylon.  Cf.  Cheyne,  Origin  of  the  Psalter,  pp. 
42,  165,  270. 


SAY*  I  •  239 

an  interesting  and  valuable  fact  about  Jerusalem 
which  is  of  no  direct  importance  for  Gcnesis-criticiMii. 
I  do  not  think  that  we  can  at  present  grant  that 
Uru-Salimmu  was  anciently  shortened  into  Salimmu, 
nor  (though  I  inclined  to  this  view  myself  in  1888) l  that 
Salimmu  is  the  name  of  a  god,  much  less  that  his 
priest  was  the  king  of  Jerusalem.  But  in  any  case 
there  is  ample  room  both  in  Dillmann's  theory  and  in 
Kuencn's  (which  is  my  own;  for  these  facts,  if  proved. 
I  am  afraid  that  Prof.  Sayce's  defence  of  the  narrative 
in  Gen.  xiv.  is  not  very  successful.  And  neither  by 
him,  nor  by  any  one  else,  has  it  yet  been  made 
probable  that  there  was  a  historical  individual  among 
the  ancestors  of  the  Israelites  called  Abram,  or  that 
the  picture  of  u  the  times  of  Abraham  "  in  Genesis  is 
(to  adopt  Prof.  Ramsay's  phrase)  a  u  fundamentally 
true  tale "  (except  indeed  so  far  as  it  reflects  the 
times  of  the  narrators). 

Another  chapter  of  Genesis,  the  historical  characters 
of  which  Prof.  Sayce  is  popularly  supposed  to  have 
vindicated  against  the  "higher  critics,"  is  Gen.  xxiii. 
Was  there,  as  he  himself  stated  in  1S8S,  a  "  Hittite 
population "  in  the  south  of  Palestine,  li  which 
clustered  round  Hebron,  and  to  whom  the  origin  of 
Jerusalem  was  partly  due"?-  It  is  at  any  rate 
proved    by  the  Tell    el-Amarna  tablets,  which   Prof. 

1  The  present  writer  himself  favoured  this  view  before  Sayce 
had  published  either  his  views  on  Mclchizcdek  or  even  his 
Hibbert  Lectures  (see  Cheyne,  Book  of  Psalms,  p.  213). 

-   The  II Utiles  (k.T.S.  .  p.  13. 


240       FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Sayceand  others  are  studying,  that  the  Hittites  made 
conquests  in  Canaan  in  the  fifteenth  century  B.C., 
and  even  threatened  Jerusalem.  But  this  admission 
does  not  carry  with  it  the  historical  character  of  the 
narrative  in  Gen.  xxiii.,  which  states  that  Abraham 
brought  a  "  field  "  and  a  sepulchre  of  "  the  people  of 
the  land,  even  the  children  of  Heth  "  (Gen.  xxiii.  7). 
The  historical  fact  of  the  Hittite  conquest  has  come 
down  to  the  writer  symbolized  as  P  in  a  meagre  and 
scarcely  recognizable  form,  and  has  become  the 
setting  of  a  tradition  of  uncertain  date.  There  is 
much  more  that  might  be  added.  How  strange  it  is 
that  even  Prof.  J.  Robertson  refers  quite  seriously  to 
Prof.  Sayce's  theories  on  the  names  of  Saul,  David, 
and  Solomon.1  One  could  wish  that  Franz  Delitzsch 
were  still  alive,  to  write  another  powerful  protest2 
against  the  audacities  of  a  free  lance. 

I  am  aware  that  Prof.  Sayce  guards  himself  now 
and  then  against  being  supposed  to  be  a  pure  con- 
servative. He  declines  (in  Expository  Times)  to 
make  any  concession  to  the  "historical"  theory  of  the 
narratives  in  Daniel,  he  believes  (unlike  M.  Halevy) 
that  there  are  documents  in  Genesis,3  and  even  that 

1  Early  Religion  of  Israel,  pp.  178-179.  So  a  reviewer  of  my 
Aids  to  the  Devout  Study  of  Criticism  (letter  in  Guardian,  Oct. 
5,  1892)  not  less  seriously  appeals  to  Prof.  Sayce  as  a  critical 
authority.  Against  Sayce,  see  Tide's  review  of  the  Hibbert 
Lectures  in  the  Tlieologiscli  Tijdsclirift,  1890,  p.  96. 

2  Zt.f  kirchliche  Wissenschaft,  1888,  pp.  124 — 126. 

3  For  Halevy's  opinions,  see  his  strange  review  of  Kautzsch 
and  Sociivs  Genesis,  Revue  critique,  14 — 21  sept.  1S91. 


SAYCE.  241 

a  good  deal  of  the  Old  Testament  in  its  present  form 
is  composite  in  character,  though  nothing  definite 
beyond  that  has  been  established.1  But  these  con- 
cessions to  criticism  cannot  obtain  the  same  wide 
currency  as  his  other  statements,  and  even  were 
it  otherwise,  they  come  far  short  of  justice.  From  a 
layman  they  would  be  an  interesting  proof  of  the 
gradual  filtration  of  critical  views,  but  from  one  who 
is  well  known  to  have  been  long  interested  in  theology 
they  are  only  an  additional  obstacle  to  progress.  I 
cannot  help  deploring  this  state  of  things.  Need  it 
continue  ?  Why  should  not  this  "  versatile  and 
Protean  scholar"  (as  Prof.  Ramsay  calls  him),  who 
has,  by  his  own  admission,  "  not  paid  much  attention 
of  late  years  to  Biblical  criticism,"  and  speaks  of 
"the  school  of  Wellhausen  "  from  hearsay,  repair  this 
omission,  and  seek  the  assistance  of  the  critics  in 
questions  on  which  he  and  they  are  equally  concerned  ? 
To  the  services  of  Assyriology  they  arc  by  no  means 
blind  ;  why  should  not  he  on  his  side  once  more 
recognize  them  as  fellow-explorers  with  himself  of 
the  dark  places  of  antiquity  ?  It  is  at  any  rate  as 
such  an  explorer  that  I  venture  to  include  him  among 
English  "  founders  of  criticism." 

Last,  not  least,  in  the  present  group  is  another 
colleague  of  the  writer,  Prof.  S.  R.  Driver.  His 
merits  however  are  too  great  to  be  dealt  with 
adequately  in  the  space  which  remains  in  this  chapter. 

1  Christian  Commonwealth,  Oct.  22,  1891  (a  report  of  Pro£ 
Sayce's  opinions  which  has  evidently  been  carefully  correct* 

K 


242      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

I  will  therefore  reserve  this  subject,  and  pass  on  to 
some  younger  scholars  who  are  now  winning  their 
way  to  the  front.  Prof.  A.  F.  Kirkpatrick,  in  his  hand- 
books to  I  and  2  Samuel  {Cambridge  Bible,  1880-8 1), 
showed  himself  a  careful  Hebraist  and  an  able  teacher, 
but  his  point  of  view  was  non-critical.  Since  then, 
in  The  Divine  Library  of  the  Old  Testament  (1891) 
and  in  his  commentary  on  Book  I.  of  the  Psalms 
(same  series,  1891),  he  has  shown  that  he  has  come 
over  to  the  critical  side.  The  moral  and  intellectual 
energy  presupposed  by  this  step  deserves  cordial  re- 
cognition. One  can  only  welcome  so  true,  so  earnest, 
so  reverent  a  scholar.  His  two  earliest  critical  or 
semi-critical  works  are  deficient  (naturally  enough)  in 
maturity  of  judgment  and  in  grasp  of  the  large  and 
complicated  questions  before  him.  But  he  has  time 
yet  to  spare,  and  if  he  should  prefer  rather  to  follow 
Davidson  than  Robertson  Smith — rather  to  be  an 
exegete  and  a  Biblical  theologian  than  a  historical 
critic,  one  can  but  rejoice,  assuming  that  he  too  has 
an  equally  friendly  feeling  towards  those  who,  for  the 
sake  of  exegesis  and  Biblical  theology,  feel  bound  to 
prosecute  a  keener  criticism.1  Nor  can  one  hope 
anything  less  from  his  younger  colleague,  Prof.  H.  E. 
Ryle.  This  scholar  appears  to  have  specialized 
rather  late,  and  to  this  we  may  attribute  a  certain 
hesitatingness  in  his  thoughtful  and  learned  hand- 
book on  the  Canon  (1891).  But  he  too  is  a  careful 
Hebraist    (as   his    own  and  Mr.    James's  work,    The 

1  His  Warburto?i  Lectures  have  not  as  yet  appeared  (Nov.  1892). 


FRANCIS   BROWN— MOORE. 

Psaluis  of  the  Pharisees,  proves),  and  his  popular 
studies  on  the  Early  Narratives  of  Genesis  (1892) 
show  that  he  is  assimilating  the  best  results  of 
literary  and  archaeological  critici>m.  His  expected 
(November  1S92)  volume  on  Ezra  and  Nchcmiah 
{Cambridge  Bible)  will  no  doubt  confirm  this  view  of 
his  capacities  and  attainments.  Very  much  light  has 
been  thrown  upon  these  books  by  recent  study,  and 
no  one  can  adapt  this  new  knowledge  to  English 
wants  better  than   Prof.  Ryle. 

Nor  must  one  overlook  two  rising  American 
scholars,  who,  by  their  linguistic  training  and  early 
adhesion  to  the  critical  point  of  view,  justify  the 
highest  hopes — Prof.  Francis  Brown  and  G.  F.  Moore. 
The  former  has  given  special  attention  to  the 
relations  between  Assyriology  and  Old  Testament 
studies,  the  latter  to  critical  exegesis  ;  and  both 
seem  to  be  more  completely  at  home  in  the  u  higher 
criticism  "  than  their  Cambridge  colleagues.  Circum- 
stances and  individualities  differ,  nor  must  we  com- 
plain if  America  should  for  a  short  time  surpass 
Great  Britain  in  the  maturity  of  its  M  higher  critics." 
Prof.  Moore's  articles  in  American  and  German 
periodicals  are  models  in  their  kind,  and  one  looks 
forward  with  eagerness  to  a  philological  commentary 
from  his  pen.  Prof.  Brown's  promised  handbook  to 
the  contemporary  history  (Zeitgesehiehte)  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  Clark's  new  International  Library 
will  fill  a  gap  which  is  every  day  more  painfully  felt. 
His  lecture  on  the  use  and  abuse  of  Assyriology  in 


244      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Old  Testament  study  (1885),  and  his  articles  on  the 
Hittites  and  on  Babylonian  religion  [Presbyterian 
Review,  1886,  1888),  will  repay  an  attentive  perusal. 
Above  all,  the  Hebrew  Lexicon,  of  which  he  is  the 
principal  editor,  will,  when  completed,  ensure  a  sound 
basis  for  Old  Testament  criticism  for  many  a  long 
day.  An  Episcopalian  scholar,  Dr.  J.  P.  Peters,  a 
trained  Hebraist  and  Assyriologist,  should  also  be 
mentioned  with  honour. 

The  name  of  Prof.  Francis  Brown  naturally 
suggests  that  of  Prof.  Owen  C.  Whitehouse,  a  careful 
student  of  Assyriology,  who  has  translated  Prof. 
Schrader's  important  work,  The  Cuneiform  Inscrip- 
tions, with  learned  additions.  This  scholar  has 
moved  but  slowly  from  a  more  conservative  critical 
point  of  view  as  regards  the  Hexateuch.  In  1888  he 
attempted  to  revive  the  theory  of  Ewald  that  the 
"  Grundschrift "  dated  from  the  time  of  Solomon  ; 1 
from  more  recent  articles  I  gather  that  he  has  seen 
reason  to  give  up  this  view,  but  that  he  has  not  yet 
obtained  many  fixed  points  in  Old  Testament  criti- 
cism. Prof.  G.  A.  Smith,  was  probably  trained  in  a 
freer  atmosphere.  Of  his  popular  exposition  of 
Isaiah  (1889-90)  I  have  often  spoken  with  no  lack  of 
warmth.  Why  I  cannot  assent  to  his  views  on  the 
dates  of  the  later  portions  of  Isa.  xl. — lxvi.,  I  have 
explained  elsewhere.2  Prof.  Archibald  Duff's  Old  Tes- 
tament   Theology,  vol.  i.   (1891),  is   a  work  conceived 

1  Expositor,  1888  (1),  p.  144. 

2  Ibid.  1891  (1),  pp.  150—160. 


FRIPP — ADDIS — M0NTEFI0K1.  245 

in  a  free,  evangelical  spirit,  and  carried  out  with 
delicate  insight  and  a  sometimes  almost  too  ingenious 
scholarship.  Roth  Duff  and  G.  A.  Smith  have 
suffered  somewhat  as  writers  from  the  effects  of 
over-much  preaching,  but  if  by  their  books  preachers 
can  be  induced  to  study  the  root-ideas  of  Biblical 
religion  in  their  historical  development,  the  Church  at 
large  will  be  the  gainer.  But  has  pure  criticism  been 
neglected?  Certainly  not.  The  year  1891  saw  the 
appearance  of  two  new  writers,  Mr.  E.  J.  Fripp  with 
his  truly  practical  edition  of  Genesis  according  to 
advanced  criticism  (not  without  some  more  or  less 
original  views  of  his  own),  and  Mr.  W.  E.  Addis  (a 
ripe  theological  and  Semitic  scholar'  and  follower  of 
Kuenen  and  Wcllhausen)  with  the  first  volume  of  his 
translation  and  chronological  arrangement  of  the 
documents  of  the  Hexatcuch.  The  latter  book  has 
useful  notes,  and  an  introduction  as  lucidly  expressed 
as  it  is  full  of  matter.  Mr.  Addis  was  already  known 
to  specialists  by  his  brave  attempt  to  familiarize 
Roman  Catholic  readers  with  the  facts  revealed  by 
the  "higher  criticism"  of  the  Old  Testament.  1 1  is 
work,  being  based  on  more  prolonged  studies,  has  a 
scholarly  ripeness  which  Mr.  Fripp's  work,  bright 
and  keen  as  he  is,  can  hardly  possess.  Mr.  C.  G. 
Montefiore's  Hibbert  Lectures  for  1892  have  not  yet 
(November  1S92)  appeared,  but  his  articles  in  the 
Jewish  Quarterly  Review  sufficiently  prove  how 
steadily  and  surely  he  is  ripening  into  a  fine  critic. 
Returning  to  America,  one  chronicles  with  pleasure 


246      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Mr.  B.  W.  Bacon's  The  Genesis  of  Genesis  (1892). 
This,  as  the  title-page  tells  us,  is  a  study  of  the  docu- 
mentary sources  of  the  first  Book  of  Moses  in  accord- 
ance with  the  results  of  critical  science,  illustrating  the 
presence  of  Bibles  within  the  Bible.  It  is,  as  Prof. 
G.  F.  Moore  says  in  his  introduction,  the  fruit  of  long 
and  thorough  study  of  the  text,  and  of  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  literature  of  recent  criticism. 
Mr.  Bacon  strikes  me  as  the  ablest  of  our  younger 
critics  of  the  Hexateuch  ;  his  articles  in  Hebraica 
and  in  the  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature  well  deserve 
to  be  studied.  Nor  is  he  the  only  contributor  to 
these  two  periodicals  who  would  have  a  claim  to 
recognition  in  a  more  complete  record  than  this.  From 
the  editor  himself  (Prof.  Harper)  we  may  expect  some 
solid  work  in  Prof.  Haupt's  expected  translation 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  last  of  the  younger  English  critics  whom  I 
can  mention  at  present :  is  Mr.  A.  A.  Bevan.  It  is 
true  that  he  has  been  chiefly  attracted  by  the 
linguistic  side  of  the  Old  Testament.  His  emen- 
dations2 of  the  text  of  Isaiah  and  of  Daniel  may  not 
commend  themselves  to  one's  judgment,  but  they  are 
evidence  of  his  critical  acumen.  His  Short  Com- 
mentary on  the  Book  of  Daniel  (1892),  though  critically 

1  Scholars  like  Prof.   Bennett,   Prof.  A.   R.    Kennedy,  Prof. 
Davison,  and  Dr.  John  Taylor  (author  of  The  Hebrew  Text  of 
Micah)  will  pardon  me  if  I  wait  for  published  evidence  of  what 
I  do  not  in  the  least  doubt,  their  ability  to   deal  from  their 
respective  points  of  view  with  critical  problems. 

2  See  Journal  of 'Philology,  and  The  Book  of  Daniel 


BEVAN.  247 

incomplete,  aims  at  a  high  philological  standard,  not 

without  success,  and  the  frankness  with  which  he 
adopts  and  defends  the  best  current  solution  of  the 
problem  of  Daniel,  without  looking  about  for  a  com- 
promise, deserves  high  praise.  It  is,  I  confess,  the 
spirit  of  compromise  that  I  chiefly  dread  for  our 
younger  students.  Many  of  them  are  now  in  influ- 
ential posts,  and  arc  listened  to  with  respect.  But 
under  present  circumstances  it  is  perhaps  difficult  for 
them  to  avoid  extending  the  sphere  of  compromise 
from  education  to  scientific  inquiry.  May  they  have 
firmness  and  wisdom  to  meet  their  ofttimes  con- 
flicting responsibilities  ! 


r 


CHAPTER  XI.1 

DRIVER   (i). 

The  much  fuller  adhesion  of  Professor  Driver  to 
the  still  struggling  cause  of  Old  Testament  criticism 
is  an  event  in  the  history  of  this  study.  That  many 
things  indicated  it  as  probable,  can  doubtless  now  be 
observed  ;  but  until  the  publication  in  the  Con- 
temporary Review  (February  1890)  of  a  singularly 
clear  and  forcible  paper  on  the  criticism  of  the 
historical  books,  it  was  impossible  to  feel  quite  sure 
where  Dr.  Driver  stood.  Up  to  the  year  1882,  he 
was  known  through  various  learned  publications 
(notably  that  on  the  Hebrew  Tenses)  as  an  honest 
and  keen-sighted  Hebrew  scholar,  but  in  matters  of 
literary  and  historical  criticism  he  had  not  as  yet 
committed  himself,  except  of  course  to  the  non- 
acceptance  of  any  such  plainly  unphilological  view 
as  the  Solomonic  authorship  of  Ecclesiastes.2  In 
1882,  to  the  great  benefit  of  Hebrew  studies,  he 
succeeded  Dr.  Pusey  at  Christ  Church,  and  began  at 

1  Chaps,  xi. — xiii.  originally  appeared  in  the  Expositor  for 
Feb.,  March,  and  April  1892.  They  have  however  been  carefully 
revised,  and  in  some  parts  expanded,  condensed,  or  otherwise 
modified.  2  Hebrew  Tenses,  §  133  (ed.  2,  p.  151). 


DRIV1  249 

once  to  improve  to   the  utmost  the   splendid  oppor- 
tunities of  his  position  both  for  study  and  for  teaching. 

He  now  felt  it  impossible  to  confine  himself  within 
purely  linguistic  limits,  however  much  from  a 
conscientious  regard  for  the  (>  weak  brethren "  he 
may  have  desired  to  do  so.  It  is  true  that  in  his 
first  published  critical  essay,  he  approached  the 
11  higher  criticism  "  from  the  linguistic  side  {Journal 
of  PJiilology,  1882,  pp.  201 — 236),  but  there  are 
evidences  enough  in  the  pages  of  the  Guardian  and 
of  the  Expositor  that  he  was  quietly  and  unobtrusively 
feeling  his  way  towards  a  large  and  deep  com- 
prehension of  the  critical  and  cxcgctical  problems  of 
the  Hexateuch.  Nor  must  the  old  lecture-lists  of 
the  university  be  forgotten.  These  would  prove,  if 
proof  were  needed,  that  his  aspirations  were  high,  and 
his  range  of  teaching  wide,  and  that  the  sketch  of  his 
professorial  functions  given  in  his  excellent  inaugural 
lecture  was  being  justified.  To  the  delightful  obliga- 
tion of  lecturing  on  the  Hebrew  texts,  we  owe  a 
singularly  complete  and  instructive  volume  on  the 
Hebrew  of  Samuel  (1890),  the  earnest  of  other 
volumes  to  come.  And  that  Dr.  Driver  did  not 
shrink  from  touching  the  contents  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  outsider  may  divine  from  a  small  and 
unostentatious  work,1  which  forms  an  admirable 
popular  introduction  to  the  reverent  critical  study  of 

1  Critical  Notes  on  the  International  Sunday  School  Lessons 
from  the  Pentateuch  for  1887  (New  York  :    Charles  Scribncr's 
Sons,  1S87). 


250      FOUNDERS   OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

certain  chapters  of  Genesis  and  Exodus.  In  1888 
came  the  excellent  though  critically  imperfect  hand- 
book on  Isaiah  (in  the  "  Men  of  the  Bible"  Series), 
which  very  naturally  supersedes  my  own  handbook 
published  in  1870.1  In  189 1  we  received  the  valuable 
introduction  which  forms  the  subject  of  this  notice, 
and  some  time  previously  we  ought,  I  believe,  to 
have  had  before  us  the  articles  on  the  books  of  the 
Pentateuch  which  Dr.  Driver  had  contributed  to  the 
new  edition  of  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 

So  now  Dr.  Driver's  long  suspense  of  judgment  is 
to  a  great  extent  over.  The  mystery  is  cleared  up, 
and  we  know  very  nearly  where  he  now  stands.  If 
any  outsider  has  a  lingering  hope  or  fear  of  an 
imminent  counter-revolution  from  the  linguistic  side, 
he  must  not  look  to  Dr.  Driver  to  justify  it.  The 
qualities  which  are  here  displayed  by  the  author  are 
not  of  the  sensational  order,  as  a  brief  summary  of 
them  will  show.  First,  there  is  a  masterly  power  of 
selection  and  condensation  of  material.  Secondly,  a 
minute  and  equally  masterly  attention  to  correctness 
of  details.  Thirdly,  a  very  unusual  degree  of  insight 
into  critical  methods,  and  of  ability  to  apply  them. 
Fourthly,  a  truly  religious  candour  and  openness  of 
mind.  Fifthly,  a  sympathetic  interest  in  the  difficulties 
of  the   ordinary  orthodox   believer.     Willingly  do  I 

1  It  is  only  just  to  myself  to  say  that  this  work  is  in  no  sense, 
as  a  hostile  writer  in  the  Guardian  states,  "  a  youthful  pro- 
duction," but  was  written  at  an  age  when  some  men  nowadays 
are  professors,  and  both  was  and  is  respectfully  referred  to  by 
German  critics. 


DRTVI  R. 

mention    these    points.     Dr.    Driver  and    I    arc  both 
engaged  in  a  work 

"  Too  great  for  haste,  too  high  for  rivalry," 
and  we  both  agree  in  recognizing  the  law  of  generosity. 
But  I  must  add  that  I  could  still  more  gladly  have 
resigned  this  privilege  to  another.  For  I  cannut 
profess  to  be  satisfied  on  all  really  important  points 
with  Dr.  Driver's  book.  And  if  I  say  what  I  approve, 
I  must  also  mention  what  I — not  indeed  disapprove — 
but  feel  obliged  to  regret.  But  why  should  I  take  up 
the  pen  ?  Has  not  the  book  had  praise  and  (pos- 
sibly) dispraise  enough  already?  If  I  put  forward  my 
objections,  will  not  a  ripe  scholar  like  Dr.  Driver  fa 
an  answer  from  his  own  point  of  view  for  most  of 
them  ?  Why  should  I  not  take  my  ease,  and  enjoy 
even  the  less  satisfactory  parts  of  the  book  as 
reflections  of  the  individuality  of  a  friend  ?  And  the 
answer  is,  Because  I  fear  that  the  actual  position  of 
Old  Testament  criticism  may  not  be  sufficiently 
understood  from  this  work,  and  because  the  not  incon- 
siderable priority  of  my  own  start  as  a  critic  gives  me  a 
certain  vantage-ground  and  consequently  a  responsi- 
bility which  Dr.  Driver  cannot  and  would  not  dispute 
with  me.  I  will  not  now  repeat  what  I  have  said 
with  an  entirely  different  object  in  the  introduction  to 
my  Bampton  Lectures,  but  on  the  ground  of  those 
facts  I  am  bound  to  make  some  effort  to  check  the 
growth  of  undesirable  illusions,  or,  at  any  rate,  t  i 
contribute  something  to  the  formation  of  clear  ideas 
in  the  popular  mind. 


252       FOUNDERS   OF   OLD    TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

I  must  here  beg  the  reader  not  to  jump  to  the 
conclusion  that  I  am  on  the  whole  opposed  to  Dr. 
Driver.  As  I  have  already  hinted,  the  points  of 
agreement  between  us  are  much  more  numerous 
than  those  of  difference,  and  in  many  respects  I  am 
well  content  with  his  courage  and  consistency.  The 
debt  which  Dr.  Driver  owes  to  those  scholars  who 
worked  at  Old  Testament  criticism  before  him  he  has 
in  good  part  repaid.  He  came  to  this  subject  theo 
logically  and  critically  uncommitted,  and  the  result  is 
that,  in  the  main,  he  supports  criticism  with  the  full 
weight  of  his  name  and  position.  There  is  only  one 
objection  that  I  have  to  make  to  the  Introduction.  It 
is  however  threefold  :  I.  the  book  is  to  a  certain 
extent  a  compromise  ;  2.  the  (partial)  compromise 
offered  cannot  satisfy  those  for  whom  it  is  intended  ; 
3.  even  if  it  were  accepted,  it  would  not  be  found  to 
be  safe.  Let  us  take  the  first  point.  My  meaning  is, 
that  Dr.  Driver  is  free  in  his  criticism  up  to  a  certain 
point,  but  then  suddenly  stops  short,  and  that  he 
often  blunts  the  edge  of  his  decisions,  so  that  the 
student  cannot  judge  of  their  critical  bearings.  I  will 
endeavour  to  illustrate  this  from  the  book,  and,  in 
doing  so,  never  to  forget  the  "plea  "  which  Dr.  Driver 
so  genially  puts  in  to  be  "judged  leniently  for  what 
he  has  7iot  said "  (Preface,  p.  ix).  At  present,  to 
clear  the  ground  for  future  "  lenient "  or  rather 
friendly  criticisms,  let  me  only  remark  that  I  am  not 
myself  opposed  on  principle  to  all  "  stopping  short," 
i.e.  to  all  compromise.     In  June  and  August  1889,  I 


DRIVER.  253 

submitted  to  those  whom  it  concerned  a  plan  of 
reform  in  the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
included  a  large  provisional  use  of  it.1  My  earnest 
appeal  was  indeed  not  responded  to.  Even  my  friend 
Dr.  Sanday  passes  it  over  in  a  well-known  work,8 
and  praises  the  waiting  attitude  of  our  more  liberal 
bishops.  But  I  still  reiterate  the  same  appeal  for  a 
compromise,  though  I  couch  it  differently.  It  is  not 
at  all  hard  to  find  out  what  results  of  criticism  arc 
most  easily  assimilated  by  thinking  laymen,  and  most 
important  for  building  up  the  religious  life.  Let 
those  results  be  put  forward,  with  the  more  generally 
intelligible  grounds  for  them,  first  of  all  for  private 
study,  and  then,  with  due  regard  to  local  circum- 
stances, in  public  or  semi-public  tcachin  To 
practical  compromises  I  am  therefore  favourable,  but 
this  does  not  bind  me  to  approve  of  scientific  ones. 
The  time  for  even  a  partly  apologetic  criticism  or 
exegesis  is  almost  over  ;  nothing  but  the  "  truest 
truth "  will  serve  the  purposes  of  the  best  con- 
temporary students  of  theology.  This  indeed  is 
fully  recognized  in  the  preface  of  the  editors  of  the 
"  Library  "  to  which  this  book  belongs,  the  object  of 
which  is  defined  as  being  "adequately  (to)  represent 
the  present  condition  of  investigation,  and  (to)  indicate 
the  way  for  further  progress." 

I  regret  therefore  that  Dr.  Driver  did   not  leave  the 
task  of  forming  a  distinctively  Church  criticism  (of 

1  See  Contemporary  Review^  August  1S89. 

-  The  Oracles  of  God  ( 1 89 1 ). 


254      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

which  even  now  I  do  not  deny  the  value  for  a  certain 
class  of  students)  to  younger  men,1  or  to  those 
excellent  persons  who,  after  standing  aloof  for  years, 
now  begin  to  patronize  criticism,  saying,  "  Thus  far 
shalt  thou  come,  but  no  farther  ! "  I  heartily  sympa- 
thize with  Dr.  Driver's  feelings,  but  I  think  that  there 
is  a  still  "  more  excellent  way  "  of  helping  the  better 
students,  viz.  to  absorb  the  full  spirit  of  criticism 
(not  of  irreligious  criticism),  and  to  stand  beside  the 
foremost  workers,  only  taking  care,  in  the  formulation 
of  results,  frankly  to  point  out  their  religious  bearings, 
of  which  no  one  who  has  true  faith  need  be  afraid. 
I  know  that  this  might  perhaps  have  involved  other 
modifications  of  Dr.  Driver's  plan,  but  I  cannot  help 
this.  I  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  sketch  here  in 
outline  the  book  that  might  have  been,  but  I  could 
not  withhold  this  remark,  especially  as  I  am  sure 
that  even  Dr.  Driver's  very  "  moderate "  textbook 
will  appear  to  many  not  to  give  hints  enough 
concerning  the  religious  value  of  the  records  criticized. 
And  forcible,  judicious,  and  interesting  as  the  preface 
is,  I  do  not  feel  that  the  author  takes  sufficiently  high 
ground.  I  am  still  conscious  of  an  unsatisfied  desire 
for  an  inspiring  introductory  book  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, written  from  the  combined  points  of  view  of  a 
keen  critic  and  a  progressive  evangelical  theologian. 
Next,    as   to    the   second    point.     Can    this    com- 

1  A  popular  semi-critical  book  on  the  origin  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  might  be  of  great  use  for  schools  and 
Bible-classes. 


DRIVER.  ■:; 

promise  (or,  partial  compromise)  satisfy  orthodox 
judges  ?  It  is  true  that  Dr.  Driver  has  one  moral 
and  intellectual  quality  which  might  be  expected  to 
predispose  such  persons  special  1)-  in  his  favour — the 
quality  of  caution.  The  words  M  moderation "  and 
"sobriety"  have  a  charm  for  him;  to  be  called  an 
extreme  critic,  or  a  wild  theorist,  would  cause  him 
annoyance.  And  this  "  characteristic  caution  "  has 
not  failed  to  impress  a  prominent  writer  in  the  most 
influential  (Anglican)  Church  paper.  The  passage  is 
at  the  end  of  the  first  part  of  a  review  of  the 
Introduction}  and  the  writer  hazards  the  opinion  that, 
on  the  most  "burning"  of  all  questions  Dr.  Driver's 
decision  contains  the  elements  of  a  working  com- 
promise between  the  old  views  and  the  new.  But 
how  difficult  it  is  to  get  people  to  agree  as  to 
what  "  caution  "  and  "  sobriety"  are  !  For  if  we  turn 
to  the  obituary  notices  of  the  great  Dutch  critic, 
Abraham  Kuenen,  we  find  that  he  strikes  sonic 
competent  observers  as  eminently  cautious  and  sober- 
minded,  not  moving  forward  till  he  has  prepared  the 
way  by  careful  investigation,  and  always  distinguishing 
between  the  certain  and  the  more  or  less  probable. 
And  again,  it  appears  from  the  recent  Charge  of 
Bishop  Ellicott  that  this  honoured  theologian  (who 
alas!  still  stands  where  he  stood  in  earlier  crisc 
no  great  difference  between  the  critical  views  of 
Kuenen  and  Wcllhausen  on  the  one  hand,  and   tlv 

1  Guardian,  Nov.  25,  1891. 


256      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

of  Dr.  Driver  and  "  the  English  Analytical  School  " 
on  the  other.  If  the  former  have  "  lost  all  sense  of 
proportion  "  and  been  "  hurried  "  to  extreme  results 
by  an  "  almost  boundless  self-confidence,"  the  latter 
have,  by  their  "  over-hasty  excursions  into  the 
Analytical,"  prepared  the  way  for  "shaken  and 
unstable  minds  "  to  arrive  at  results  which  are  only 
a  little  more  advanced.1  And  in  perfect  harmony 
with  Bishop  Ellicott's  denial  of  the  possibility  of 
"  compromise,"  I  find  a  writer  of  less  sanguine  nature 
than  Dr.  Driver's  reviewer  warning  the  readers  of  the 
Gtmrdian  that  the  supposed  rapprochement  will  not 
"  form  a  bridge  solid  enough  to  unite  the  opposite 
sides  of  the  chasm "  between  the  two  schools  of 
thought.2 

This  is  in  my  opinion  a  true  saying.  Some  of 
those  to  whom  Dr.  Driver's  compromise  is  addressed 
will  (like  Bishop  Ellicott)  be  kept  aloof  by  deep 
theological  differences.  Others,  whose  minds  may 
be  less  definitely  theological,  will  place  their  hope  in 
a  critical  "  counter-revolution "  (see  p.  250),  to  be 
effected  either  by  an  induction  from  linguistic  facts, 
or  by  means  of  cuneiform  and  archaeological  dis- 
covery. I  do  not  speak  without  cause,  as  readers  of 
popular  religious  journals  will  be  aware.  The  limits 
of  Dr.  Driver's  work  did  not  permit  him  to  refer  to 
this  point ;  but  considering  the  avidity  with  which  a 

1  Christus  Comprobator  (1891),  pp.  29,  59.     I   cannot   help 
respectfully  protesting  against  the  title  of  this  work. 

2  Guardian,  Dec.  2,  1891. 


bRIVER.  .257 

large   portion  of   the   public    seizes    upon    assertions 
backed    by    some    well-known     name,    it     may    soon 
become  necessary  for  him  and  for  others  to  do  so. 
Upon  a  very  slender  basis  of  reason  and  of  facts  an 
imposing  structure  of  revived   and  "rectified"1    tra- 
ditionalism   may    soon   be    charmed    into    existence. 
We  may  soon  hear  again  the  confident  appeal  to  the 
"common  sense"  of  the  "plain   Englishman" — that 
invaluable  faculty  which,  according  to  Bishop  Ellicott, 
is  notably  wanting,  "  if  it  be  not  insular  prejudice  to 
say   so,v    in    ^11    recent    German    critics    of    the   Old 
Testament.     Critical   and    historical  sense    (which   is 
really  the    perfection  of   common   sense,  trained   by 
right  methods,  and  assisted  by  a  health}-  imagination) 
may  continue  to  be  treated  with  contempt,  and   Dr. 
Driver's   book   may  receive    credit,   not    for    its   sub- 
stantial  merits,  but    for    what,  by    comparison,  may 
be  called  its  defects.     These  are  real  dangers  ;   nay, 
rather  to  some  extent  they  are  already  facts  which 
cannot  but  hinder  the  acceptance  of  this  well-meant 
compromise. 

And,  lastly,  as  to  the  third  point.  Is  even  a 
partial  compromise  like  this  safe  ?  I  am  afraid  that 
it  is  not.  It  implies  that  Biblical  criticism  must  be 
pared  down  for  apologetic  reasons.  It  assumes  thai 
though  the  traditional  theory  of  the  origin  and  (for 
this  is,  in  part,  allusively  dealt  with)  the  historic 
value  of  the  Old   Testament  books  has  been  over- 

1   1  borrow  the  word  from  Bishop  Ellicott 


258      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

thrown,  yet  we  must  in  our  reconstruction  keep  as 
close  to  the  old  theory  or  system  as  we  can.  This,  at 
the  present  stage  of  intellectual  development,  is  un- 
safe. Dr.  Driver's  fences  are  weak,  and  may  at  any 
moment  be  broken  down.  Nothing  but  the  most 
fearless  criticism,  combined  with  the  most  genuine 
spiritual  faith  in  God,  and  in  His  Son,  and  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  can  be  safe.  I  do  not  of  course  judge 
either  friends  or  foes  by  their  expressed  theories.  If 
it  should  be  made  decidedly  the  more  probable  view 
that  St.  John  did  not  originate  the  Fourth  Gospel  as 
it  now  stands,  I  am  sure,  in  spite  of  Dr.  Sanday's 
recent  words,1  that  all  truly  religious  students  would 
believe,  with  heart  and  with  head,  as  strongly  as  ever 
in  the  incomparable  nature  and  the  divine  mediator- 
ship  of  Jesus  Christ.2  They  would  do  so  on  the 
ground  of  the  facts  which  would  still  be  left  by  the 
historical  analysis  of  the  Gospels,  and  on  the  cor- 
respondence between  a  simple  Christian  view  of 
those  facts  and  the  needs  of  their  own  and  of  the 
Church's  life.  And  so  I  am  sure  that  without  half 
so  many  qualifications  as  Dr.  Driver  has  given,  the 
great  facts  left,  not  to  say  recovered,  by  advanced 
Old  Testament  criticism  are  quite  sufficient  to  justify 
the  theory  of  Hebrews  i.  I,  which  is,  I  doubt  not,  of 
permanent  importance  for  the  thinking  Christian. 
Before  passing  on,  let  me  crave  permission  to  make 

1  Contemporary  Review,  Oct.  1891,  p.  530. 

2  See  Hermann's  article,  "The  Historical  Christ  the  Found- 
ation of  our  Faith,"  in  the  Zt.  f.  TheoL  u.  Kirdie,  1882,  p.  232. 


DRIVER. 


two  remarks,  which  may  perhaps  take  off  any  undue 
sharpness  from  previous  criticisms.  The  first  is,  that 
in  criticizing  the  author,  I  am  equally  criticizing 
myself.  There  was  a  time  when  I  was  simply  a 
Biblical  critic,  and  was  untouched  by  the  apologetic 
interest.  Finding  that  this  course  cramped  the  moral 
energies,  I  ventured  to  superadd  the  function  of  the 
u  Christian  Advocate"  (of  course  only  in  the  modern 
sense  of  this  indispensable  phrase;.  The  plan  to 
which  I  was  led  was  to  adapt  Old  Testament  criticism 
and  exegesis  to  the  prejudices  of  orthodox  students 
by  giving  the  traditional  view,  in  its  most  refined 
form,  the  benefit  of  the  doubt,  whenever  there  was  a 
sufficiently  reasonable  case  for  doubt.  This  is  what 
the  Germans  call  Vcnuittcliuig,  and  I  think  that  as 
late  as  ten  or  twelve  years  ago  VermitUlung  was 
sorely  needed.  But  now,  as  it  seems  to  me,  we  have 
got  beyond  this.  /  'cnuittclung,  when  practised  by 
the  leaders  of  study  in  works  of  a  scientific  character, 
will  prove  a  hindrance,  not  only  to  the  progress  of 
historical  truth,  but  to  the  fuller  apprehension  of 
positive  evangelical  principles.  The  right  course  for 
those  who  would  be  in  the  van  of  progress  seems  to 
be  that  which  I  have  faintly  indicated  above,  and  too 
imperfectly  carried  out  in  my  more  recent  works. 
A  perfectly  free  but  none  the  less  devout  criticism  is, 
in  short,  the  best  ally,  both  of  spiritual  religion  and 
of  a  sound  apologetic  theology. 

The  second  is,  that  in  Dr.  Driver's  case  the  some- 
what excessive  caution  of  his  critical    work  can   be 


26o      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

accounted  for,  not  merely  by  a  conscientious  regard 
to  the  supposed  interests  of  the  Church,  but  by  his 
peculiar   temperament    and    past    history.      In    the 
variety  of  temperaments  God  has  appointed  that  the 
specially  cautious  one  shall  not  be  wanting ;  and  this, 
like  all  His  works,  is  no  doubt  ''very  good."    Caution, 
like  other    useful   qualities,   needs   to    be  sometimes 
represented  in  an  intensified  degree.     And  Hebrew 
grammar    in     England     urgently     needed    a    more 
cautious,    more    exact  treatment.     This    Dr.    Driver 
felt  at  the  outset  of  his  course,  and  all  recent  Hebrew 
students  owe  him  a  debt  of  gratitude.     But  what  was 
the  natural  consequence  of  his  long  devotion  to  the 
more  exact,  more  philological  study  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  ?      This — that   when    he   deliberately   en- 
larged his  circle  of  interests,  he  could  not  see  his  way 
as  far  nor  as  clearly  as  those  critics  of  wider  range, 
who  had  entered  on  their  career  at  an  earlier  period. 
Indeed,  even  apart  from  the  habits  of  a  pure  philo- 
logist, so  long  a  suspension  of  judgment  on  critical 
points  must  have  reacted  somewhat  upon  Dr.  Driver's 
mind,  and  made  it  at  first  very  difficult  for  him  to 
form  decisions.    These  have  been  real  hindrances,  and 
yet  to  what  a  considerable  extent  he  has  overcome 
them !      How    much    advanced    criticism    has    this 
conscientious  churchman — this  cautious    Hebraist — 
been  able  to  absorb  ?     And  how  certainly  therefore 
he  has  contributed  to  that  readjustment  of  theology 
to  the  general  intellectual  progress  which  is  becoming 
more  and  more  urgent ! 


DRIVER.  26l 

I  now  proceed  to  such  a  survey  of  the  contents  of 
the  work  as  my  limits  render  possible.  The  preface 
states,  in  lucid  and  dignified  language,  though  not 
without  an  excess  of  caution,  the  author's  critical  and 
religious  point  of  view,  which  is  that  of  all  modern- 
minded  and  devout  Old  Testament  critics.  Then 
follows  an  introduction  on  the  Old  Testament  Canon 
according  to  the  Jews,  which  gives  nntltum  i/i  pan\\ 
and  is  thoroughly  sound.  It  was  desirable  to  prefix 
this  because  of  a  current  assertion  that  critical  views 
are  in  conflict  with  trustworthy  Jewish  traditions.  So 
now  the  student  is  free,  both  in  a  religious  and  in  a 
historical  respect,  to  consider  the  proposed  solutions 
of  the  literary  problems  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  accompanying  views  respecting  the  objects  of  the 
several  records.  The  books  are  treated  in  the  order 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  beginning  with  those  of  the 
Hexateuch,  and  ending  with  Ezra,  Nchemiah,  and 
Chronicles.  To  the  Hexateuch  one  hundred  and  fifty 
pages  are  devoted — a  perfectly  fair  allotment,  con- 
sidering the  great  importance  of  these  six  books.  The 
plan  adopted  here,  and  throughout  the  composite 
narrative  books,  appears  to  be  this  :  after  some  pre- 
liminary remarks,  the  particular  book  is  broken  up  into 
sections  and  analyzed,  with  a  view  to  ascertain  the 
documents  or  sources  which  the  later  compiler  or  re- 
dactor welded  together  into  a  whole.1    The  grounds  of 

1  Note    especi  ally    the    care    bestowed    on    the    composite 
narrative  of   Korah,    Dathan,   and    Abiram    in    Num.   wi.-xvii. 
(p.  59),  and  cf.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Old  Testament  in 
Jewish  Church  (ed.  2),  pp.  402-3. 


262      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

the  analysis  are  given  in  small  print,  without  which 
judicious  arrangement  the  book  would  have  outrun 
its  limits.  A  somewhat  different  plan  is  necessary  for 
Deuteronomy,  which  is  treated  more  continuously, 
special  care  being  taken  to  exhibit  the  relation  of  the 
laws  to  the  other  codes,  and  to  trace  the  dependence 
of  the  two  historical  retrospects  in  chapters  i.,  iii.,  and 
ix.-x.  on  the  earlier  narrative  of"  J  E."  Then  follows  a 
very  important  section  on  the  character  and  probable 
date  of  the  "  prophetical  "  1  and  the  "  priestly  "  narra- 
tives respectively,  followed  by  a  compact  synopsis  of 
the  priestly  code.  As  regards  the  analysis  of  the 
documents,  it  would  be  difficult,  from  a  teacher's  point 
of  view,  to  say  too  much  in  praise  of  the  author's 
presentation.  Multum  in  parvo  is  again  one's  inevit- 
able comment.  The  space  has  been  utilized  to  the 
utmost,  and  the  student  who  will  be  content  to  work 
hard  will  ,  find  no  lack  of  lucidity.  No  one  can 
deny  that  the  individuality  of  the  writer,  which  is  in 
this  part  very  strongly  marked,  fits  him  in  a  special 
degree  to  be  the  interpreter  of  the  analysts  to  young 
students.     One  only  asks  that  the  cautious  reserve, 

1  On  the  so-called  "  Book  of  the  Covenant  "  (/.  e.  Ex.  xx.  22 — 
xxiii.  33)  excellent  remarks  are  given  (p.  33).  Cornill,  Budde, 
and  Baentsch  have  lately  given  much  attention  to  the  study 
of  this  record,  and  its  position  in  the  "Mosaic"  legislation. 
There  is,  as  Baentsch  shows,  no  trace  of  a  Mosaic  kernel  in  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  nor  of  its  owing  anything  to  the  attempt 
to  adapt  Mosaic  ordinances  to  a  later  time.  It  has  however 
been  much  edited.  Originally,  it  may  only  have  contained  the 
so-called  "judgments,"  which  may  (cf.  Gen.  xxxi.  3S— 40)  have 
once  been  fuller  than  thev  are  now. 


DRIVER.  263 

which  is  here  not  out  of  place,  may  not  be  contrasted 
by  that  untrained  "common  sense,"  which  is  so  swift 
to  speak,  and  so  slow  to  hear,  with  the  bolder  but 
fundamentally  not  less  cautious  procedure  of  other 
English  or  American  analysts.  Such  remarks  will,  I 
am  sure,  be  disapproved  of  by  the  author  himself, 
who  willingly  refers  to  less  reserved  critics.  And 
Dr.  Driver's  fellow-workers  will,  on  their  side,  have 
nothing  but  respect  for  his  helpful  contributions.  It 
should  be  added  that  whatever  is  vitally  important  is 
fully  granted  by  Dr.  Driver.  The  documents  J,  E,  D, 
and  P  are  all  recognized  ;  and  if  the  author  more 
frequently  than  some  critics  admits  a  difficulty  in 
distinguishing  between  J  and  E,  yet  this  is  but  a 
formal  difference.  Moreover,  no  one  doubts  that  J 
and  E  were  combined  together  by  an  editor  or 
(Kuenen)  "  harmonist,"  so  that  we  have  three  main 
records  in  the  Ilexateuch — the  prophetical  (J  E),  the 
Deuteronomic  (D),  and  the  priestly  (P).  On  the 
limits  of  these  three  records  critics  of  different  schools 
are  practically  agreed.1 

And  now,  will  the  author  forgive  me  if  I  say  that 
neither  here  nor  in  the  rest  of  the  Ilexateuch  portion 
does  he,  strictly  speaking,  verify  the  description  of  the 
object  of  the  "  Library  "  given  by  the  general  editors  ? 
The  book,  as  it  seems  to  me,  docs  not,  upon  the 
whole,  so  much  "  represent  the  present  condition  of 
investigation,  and  Indicate  the  way  for  future  progress," 

1  On  Klostcrmann's  original,  QOt  to  say  eccentric,  contribu- 
tions to  Hexateuch  criticism,  ^cc  Driver.  Expositor^  M. 


264      FOUNDERS  OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

as  exhibit  the  present  position  of  a  very  clear-headed 
but  slowly  moving  scholar,  who  stands  a  little  aside 
from  the  common  pathway  of  critics  ?  For  the  many 
English  students  this  may  conceivably  be  a  boon  ;  but 
the  fact  (if  it  be  a  fact)  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind, 
otherwise  the  friends  and  the  foes  of  the  literary 
study  of  the  Old  Testament  will  alike  be  the  victims 
of  an  illusion.  There  is  a  number  of  points  of  con- 
siderable importance  for  the  better  class  of  students 
on  which  the  author  gives  no  light,  though  I  would 
not  impute  this  merely  to  his  natural  caution,  but 
also  to  the  comparative  scantiness  of  his  space.  For 
instance,  besides  J,  E,  D,  P,  and,  within  P,  H  (z.  e. 
the  "  Law  of  Holiness,"  Lev.  xvii. — xxvi.),  I  find  now 
and  then  recognized  both  D2  and  P2,  but  not  J2  and 
E2,  though  it  is  impossible  to  get  on  long  without 
these  symbols,  which  correspond  to  facts.  Nor  do  I 
find  any  mention  of  the  source  and  date  of  Genesis 
xiv.,  upon  which  so  many  contradictory  statements 
have  been  propounded.1  Nor  is  there  any  constructive 
sketch  of  the  growth  of  our  present  Hexateuch, 
though  this  would  seem  necessary  to  give  coherence 
to  the  ideas  of  the  student.  It  would  however  be 
ungracious  to  dwell  further  on  this.  On  the  dates  of 
the  documents  J  and  E,  Dr.  Driver  is  unfortunately 
somewhat  indefinite.  It  is  surprising  to  learn  that  "  it 
must  remain  an  open  question  whether  both  (J  and  E) 

1  See  above,  p.  238.  On  no  question  would  a  few  clear  and 
frank  statements  of  facts,  and  of  the  critical  points  which  are 
really  at  issue,  be  more  useful  than  on  this. 


DRIVER.  '  ' 

may  not  in  reality  be  earlier"  (#.  e.  earlier  than  "  the 

early  centuries  of  the  monarchy  ").  I  can  of  course 
understand  that,  had  the  author  been  able  to  give  a 
keener  analysis  of  the  documents,  he  would  have 
favoured  us  with  a  fuller  consideration  of  their  period. 
But  I  do  earnestly  hope  that  he  is  not  meditating  a 
step  backwards  in  deference  to  hostile  archaeologists. 
One  more  startling  phenomenon  I  seem  bound  to 
mention.  On  p.  27  we  are  told  that  *  probably  the 
greater  part  of  the  Song  is  Mosaic,  and  the  modifi- 
cation, or  expansion,  is  limited  to  the  closing  verses  ; 
for  the  general  style  is  antique,  and  the  triumphant 
tone  which  pervades  it  is  just  such  as.  might  naturally 
have  been  inspired  by  the  event  which  it  celebrates." 

I  greatly  regret  this.  To  fall  behind  Ewald, 
Dillmann,  and  even  Delitzsch  and  Kittcl,1  is  a  mis- 
fortune which  I  can  only  account  for  on  the  theory 
of  compromise.  I  hesitate  to  contemplate  the  con- 
sequences which  might  possibly  follow  from  the 
acceptance  of  this  view. 

This  naturally  brings  me  to  the  pages  on  the 
authorship  and  date  of  Deuteronomy.  There  is  here 
very  much  which  commands  one's  entire  approbation, 
especially  with  an  eye  to  English  readers.  Candour 
is  conspicuous  throughout,  and  whenever  one  differs 

1  See,  besides  the  works  cited  by  Dr.  Driver,  Lagarde, 
Semitica,    i.    2S  ;     Kuenen,    HexaUuck^    p.  Wcllhnuscn. 

Prolegomena,    p.    374    [352];    Cornill  EinUUitng,  pp. 
Kittel,  GeschicJi/e,  i.  83,  187  :  and  my  Bampton  /  '\u  h 

give  my  own  view  since  18S1),  pp.  31,  177. 


266      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

from   the   author,  it   is  reluctantly    and    with  entire 
respect.     The  section  begins  thus — 

"  Even  though  it  were  clear  that  the  first  four  books 
of  the  Pentateuch  were  written  by  Moses,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  sustain  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  Deuter- 
onomy. For,  to  say  nothing  of  the  remarkable 
difference  of  style,  Deuteronomy  conflicts  with  the 
legislation  of  Exodus-Numbers  in  a  manner  that  would 
not  be  credible  were  the  legislator  in  both  one  and 
the  same  "  (p.  yy).  And  in  particular  c<  when  the  laws 
of  Deuteronomy  are  compared  with  those  of  P  such  a 
supposition  becomes  impossible.  For  in  Deuteronomy 
language  is  used  implying  that  fundamental  insti- 
tutions of  P  are  unknown  to  the  author?1  Sufficient 
specimens  of  the  evidence  for  these  statements  are 
given  with  a  reference  for  further  particulars  to  the 
article  "Deuteronomy"  in  the  belated  new  edition  of 
Smith's  Dictionary.  I  look  forward  with  eagerness 
to  the  appearance  of  this  article,  and  meantime 
venture  to  state  how  I  have  been  struck  by  the 
author's  treatment  of  the  question  of  date.  Whatever 
I  say  is  to  be  taken  with  all  the  qualifications  arising 
from  my  high  opinion  of  the  author,  and  demanded 
by  a  fair  consideration  of  his  narrow  limits. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  I  think  that  on  one  impor- 
tant point  Dr.  Driver  does  not  quite  accurately  state 
the  prevailing  tendency  of  recent  investigations.  No 
one  would  gather  from  p.  82,  note  2,  that  criticism  is 

1  Here,  as  always  in  quotations,  the  italics  are  those  of  the 
author. 


DRIVF.R. 

more  inclined  to  place  the  composition  of  the  original 
book  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  than  in  that  of  Manasseh, 
Such  however  is  the  case.  Delitzsch  himself 
regretfully,  "  It  will  scarcely  be  possible  to  eradicate 
the  ruling  critical  opinion  that  Deuteronomy  was 
composed  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah."  1 

If  this  view  of  the  tendency  of  criticism  is  correct, 
it  would  have  been  helpful  to  state  the  grounds  on 
which  the  reign  of  Josiah  has  been  preferred.  May  I 
venture  to  put  them  together  briefly  thus  ?  Let  the 
student  read  once  more,  with  a  fresh  mind,  the 
famoi:s  narrative  in  2  Kings  xxii.,  which  I  for  one  do 
not  feel  able  to  reject  as  unhistorical.  He  can  hardly 
fail  to  receive  the  impression  that  the  only  person 
who  is  vehemently  moved  by  the  perusal  of  M  the 
law-book  "  (more  strictly,  "  the  book  of  toraJi  ")  is 
the  king.  How  is  this  to  be  accounted  for?  How  is 
it  that  Hilkiah,  Shaphan,  and  Huldah  display  such 
imperturbability  ?  The  easiest  supposition  is  that 
these  three  persons  (to  whom  we  must  add  Ahikam, 
Achbor,  and  Asaiah)  had  agreed  together,  unknown 
to  the  king,  on  their  course  of  action.  It  m  ly  be 
thought  strange  that  all  these,  except  Hilkiah  and 
Huldah,  were  courtiers.  But  they  were  also  (as  we 
partly  know,  partly  infer)  friends  of  the  prophet 
Jeremiah,  and  therefore  no  mere  courtiers.  Huldah, 
moreover,  though  the  wife  of  a  courtier,  was  herself  a 

1  Preface  by  Delitzsch  to  Curtiss's  /.  Priests  ( 1S77), 

p.    \.      The  latest    introdurtion   'th.it  of  CornilP    verities   this 
]>nv_rnostiration. 


268      FOUNDERS   OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

prophetess.  We  must  suppose,  then,  in  order  to 
realize  the  circumstances  at  once  historically  and 
devoutly,  that  to  the  priests  and  prophets  who 
loved  spiritual  religion  God  had  revealed  that  now 
was  the  time  to  take  a  bold  step  forward,  and  accom- 
plish the  work  which  the  noblest  servants  of  Jehovah 
had  so  long  desired.  The  "  pen  of  the  scribes  "  (Jer. 
viii.  8)  had  been  recently  consecrated  to  this  purpose 
by  the  writing  down  of  the  kernel  of  what  we  now 
call  Deuteronomy.  This  document  consisted  of 
ancient  laws  adapted  to  present  purposes,  and  com- 
pleted by  the  addition  of  recent  and  even  perfectly 
new  ones,  framed  in  the  spirit  of  Moses  and  under 
the  sacred  authority  of  priests  and  prophets,  together 
with  earnest  exhortations  and  threatenings.  It  had 
apparently  been  placed  in  a  repository  beside  the 
ark  (comp.  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  26),1  and  there  (if  we  may 
so  interpret  the  words  "in  the  house  of  Jehovah") 
Hilkiah  professed  to  Shaphan  "  the  secretary "  to 
have  "  found  "  it.  One  of  these  seeming  "  chances  " 
which  mark  the  interposing  hand  of  God  favoured 

1  Deut.  xxxi.  9  belongs  to  the  main  body  of  Deuteronomy, 
whereas  ver.  26  (as  a  part  of  vv.  24 — 30)  belongs  to  the 
editor.  According  to  Dillmann,  however,  vv.  24 — 26a  (down  to 
''Jehovah  your  God")  originally  stood  after  vv.  9—13,  and 
belong  to  Deuteronomy  proper.  But  in  any  case  it  is  certain 
that  the  editor  7-ightly  interpreted  the  "  delivering  "  of  the  Torah 
to  the  "Levitical  priests,"  when  he  made  Moses  say,  "Take 
this  law-book,  and  put  it  beside  the  ark."  For  of  course  the 
persons  addressed  were  to  carry  both  the  ark  and  the  "  bag  "  or 
"box"  {argaz,  see  1  Sam.  vi.  8,  n,  15)  which  contained  the 
most  sacred  objects  of  religion. 


DRIVER. 

the  project  of  Hilkiah.  Repairs  on  a  large  scale  had 
been  undertaken  in  the  temple,  and  with  his  mind 
set  on  the  restoration  of  the  material  "  house  of  God," 
Josiah  was  all  the  more  likely  to  be  interested  in  the- 
re-edification of  His  spiritual  house.  So  Shaphan 
reported  the  "  finding,"  and  read  the  book  in  the  I 
of  the  king.  The  king  recognized  the  vuicc  of 
Moses  ;  this  was  not  one  of  those  law-books  which 
Jeremiah  ascribed  to  "the  lying  pen  of  scribes."  The 
result  is  matter  of  history  to  all  at  any  rate  but  the 
followers  of  M.  Maurice  Verncs. 

It  may  doubtless  be  urged  against  this  view  of  the 
circumstances  that  we  have  enlisted  the  imagination 
in  the  service  of  history.  But  why  .should  we  not  do 
so  ?  Of  course,  we  would  very  gladly  dispense  with 
this  useful  but  dangerous  ally,  but  is  there  a  single 
historical  critic,  a  single  critical  historian,  who  is  not 
often  obliged  to  invite  its  help  ?  Certainly  in  the  case 
of  2  Kings  xxii.,  which  is  an  extract  from  a  larger  and 
fuller  document,1  it  is  impossible  not  to  endeavour  to 
fill  up  laaunc  with  the  help  of  the  imagination.  The 
alternative  view — that  the  "  law-book  "  was  written  in 
the  reign  of  Manasseh — is  not  one  which  commends  it- 
self to  the  historic  sense.  Even  supposing  that  some- 
ardent  spirit  conceived  the  idea  of  a  reformation  by 
means  of  a  "  law-book,"  yet  there  is  a  gulf  between 
such  an  idea  and  its  successful  accomplishment.  No 
prophecy  pointed  to  the  advent  of  a  reforming  king 

1  This  has,  I  think,  not  heen  sufficiently  considered  by  ProC 
Kyle  in  his  work  on  the  Canon,  when  referring  to  3  Kin^s  xxii. 


2/0      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

(i  Kings  xiii.,  as  consistent  critics  agree,  is  of  very 
late  origin) ;  we  cannot  therefore  appeal  to  the 
analogy  of  Ezekiel's  ideal  legislation.  The  hopeful 
and  practical  spirit  which  pervades  the  book  is  in- 
consistent with  a  time  of  reaction,  when  it  seemed  to 
a  prophet  that  the  "  good  man  "  had  "  perished  out  of 
the  earth,"  and  that  there  was  M  none  upright  among 
men  "  (Mic.  vii.  2).  I  admit  that  the  prophecy  from 
which  I  have  just  quoted  (Mic.  vi.  1 — vii.  6),  and  which 
was  probably  written  under  Manasseh,  reminds  us 
somewhat,  at  the  outset,  of  Deuteronomy,  but  the 
gloomy  and  indignant  tone  which  predominates  in  it 
is  entirely  alien  to  the  great  "  law-book."  The  asser- 
tion that  the  date  of  Deuteronomy  must  be  pushed 
up  a  little  higher  to  allow  time  for  literary  style  to 
sink  to  the  level  of  Jeremiah  is  a  doubtful  one.  Cer- 
tainly Jeremiah's  style  is  less  pure  than  that  of 
Deuteronomy  (as  Kleinert  has  well  shown).  But  who 
would  maintain  that  in  all  the  different  literary  circles 
of  Jerusalem  at  the  same  period  an  equally  pure 
style  was  in  vogue  ?  Proverbs  i. — ix.  is  placed  by 
critics,  with  whom  Dr.  Driver  (p.  382)  seems  inclined 
to  agree,  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  and  here  at  least  we 
have  an  elevated,  oratorical  diction,  with  very  little 
Aramaism.  Jeremiah  himself  was  too  emotional  to 
be  either  a  purist  or  an  artist.  What  is  the  most 
obvious  conclusion  from  all  the  facts  and  indications  ? 
Surely  this — that  while  the  heathenish  reaction  under 
Manasseh,  by  knitting  the  faithful  together  and  forc- 
ing them  to  meditate  on  their  principles  and  on  the 


DRIVER.  271 

means  of  applying  these  to  practice,  created  some  of 
the  conditions  under  which  alone  "  Deuteronomy " 
could  arise,  and  while  it  is  not  impossible  that  a 
Deuteronomic  style  began  to  form  itself  a  little  before 
the  time  of  Josiah,  the  reign  of  Manusseh  is  never- 
theless not  the  period  in  which  the  Book  (/.  c.  its 
kernel)  can  have  been  composed.  Instead  of  saying, 
"not  later  than  the  reign  of  Manassch"  (p.  82),  it 
would  have  been  truer  to  the  actual  state  of  critical 
study  to  say  (against  M.  Vernes),  "by  no  possibility 
later  than  the  eighteenth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Josiah." 

Indeed,  the  sole  advantage  of  Dr.  Driver's  present 
theory  is  that  it  will  enable  popular  writers  to  defend 
Hilkiah  the  more  easily  from  the  charge  (which  con- 
servative scholars  sometimes  imagine  to  be  involved 
in  the  other  theory)  of  complicity  in  a  "  forgery."  ' 
But  may  it  not  be  questioned  whether  even  for 
popular  writers  it  is  not  best  to  approach  as  near  as 
they  can  to  the  truth  ?  The  test  of  a  forgery  sug- 
gested by  Mr.  Gore,  viz.  to  find  out  whether  the 
writer  of  a  particular  book  could  have  afforded  to 
disclose  the  method  and  circumstances  of  his  pro- 
duction, can  be  successfully  stood    by   the  writer  of 

1   I  quite  enter  into  the  dislike  of  reverent  Bible-readers  for 

the  theory  of  "  pious  fraud."    I  think  that  dislike  an  1  ucd 

one.  No  student  of  Oriental  life  and  history  could  be  surprised 
at  a  pious  fraud  originating  among  priests.  But  I  do  not 
adopt  that  theory  to  account  for  2  Kings  wii.,  and  have  sought 
to  be  somewhat  clearer  and  more  explicit  than  my  friend  I'rof. 
Robertson  Smith  in  his  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Chin.    . 


272      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Deuteronomy.     Hilkiah,  as  representing  this  writer,1 
could  well  have  afforded  to  make  such  a  disclosure  to 
literary  students  familiar  with  the  modes  of  thought 
of  priestly  and  prophetic   writers.     But   was  Josiah 
such  a  student,  and  even  if  he  were,  was  this  a  time 
for  any  such  minute  explanation  ?     Practical  wisdom 
required  that  the  account  given  to  Josiah  should  be 
the  same  which  would  have  to  be  given  to  the  people 
at  large.     The  Book  was  "  the  torah  of  Moses,"  and 
the  basis  of  the  legal  portion  of  it  (viz.  the  "  Book  of 
the  Covenant  ")  had  no  doubt  been  kept  in  the  temple 
archives.     What,  pray,  could  be  said  of  it,  even  by  a 
religious  statesman,  but  that  it  had  been  "  found   in 
the  house  of  Jehovah  "  ?     Such  conduct  as .  that  of 
Hilkiah  is,  I  maintain,  worthy  of  an  inspired  teacher 
and  statesman  in  that  age  and  under  those  circum- 
stances.    It  is  also  not  without  a  distant  resemblance 
to  the  course  of  Divine  Providence,  so  far  as  this  can 
be   scanned    by  our  weak    faculties.     Indeed,   if  we 
reject  the  theory  of  "  needful  illusion,"  we  are  thrown 
upon  a  sea  of  perplexity.     Was  there  no  book  on 
Jeremiah  bringing  home  the  need  of  this  theory  to 
the  Christian  conscience,  to  which  Dr.  Driver  could 
have  referred  ? 

But  no  doubt  the  student  will  here  ask,  How  can 

1  Hilkiah  may  possibly  (in  spite  of  Deut.  xviii.  6 — 8)  have  had 
to  do  with  the  composition  of  the  book.  He  was  certainly  con- 
cerned in  its  publication,  and,  as  Baudissin  remarks,  was 
probably  above  the  narrow  class-feelings  of  his  corporation. 
To  say  that  he  was  "  the  forger  of  Deuteronomy  "  is  of  course  a 
gross  misrepresentation  of  my  opinion. 


DRIVl  273 

the  kernel  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  be  justly 
described  as  the  " tordh  of  Moses"?  Dr.  Driver 
devotes  what  space  he  can  afford  to  this  most 
important  question  (see  pp.  S3 — 85).  lie  begins  by 
drawing  the  distinction  (on  which  great  stress  is  also 
laid  by  Delitzsch)  that  "  though  it  may  seem  para- 
doxical to  say  so,  Deuteronomy  does  not  claim  to  be 
written  by  Moses.  Wherever  the  author  speaks  him- 
self, he  purposes  to  give  a  description  in  the  third 
person  of  what  Moses  did  or  said.  The  true  '  author  ' 
of  Deuteronomy  is  thus  the  writer  who  introduces 
Moses  in  the  third  person  ;  and  the  discourses  which 
he  is  represented  as  having  spoken  fall  in  consequence 
into  the  same  category  as  the  speeches  in  the  his- 
torical books,  some  of  which  largely,  and  others 
entirely,  are  the  composition  of  the  compilers,  and 
are  placed  by  them  in  the  mouths  of  historical 
characters.  .  .  .  An  author,  therefore,  in  framing 
discourses  appropriate  to  Moses'  situation,  especially 
if  (as  is  probable)  the  elements  were  provided  for  him 
by  tradition,  could  be  doing  nothing  inconsistent  with 
the  literary  usages  of  his  age  and  people." 

This  hardly  goes  far  towards  meeting  the  diffi- 
culties of  the  student.  In  a  footnote  (p.  84*  there  is 
a  list  of  passages  of  Deuteronomy  describing  in  the 
third  person  what  Moses  did  or  said,  which  closes 
with  Deuteronomy  xxxi.  1 — 30.  I  do  not  forget  the 
demands  on  Dr.  Driver's  space,  but  in  this  closing 
passage  there  occur  two  statements,  "  And  Moses 
wrote    this    tordh"   (vcr.  9;,  and  "When    Mosi      had 


274      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  torah  in  a 
book,  until  they  were  finished"  (ver.  24),  which 
demanded  special  consideration.  Let  us  listen  to 
the  candid  and  devout  Delitzsch.  "  If  the  statement, 
'  And  Moses  wrote/  were  meant  to  be  valid  for  the 
whole  of  Deuteronomy  as  it  stands,  Deuteronomy 
would  be  a  pseudepigraphon "  [Genesis,  p.  23).  In 
the  sequel  Delitzsch  communicates  his  own  explana- 
tion of  the  difficulty.  Now  should  not  Dr.  Driver 
have  given  two  or  three  lines  to  a  mention  of  the 
difficulty,  and  a  particularly  full  reference  to  the 
sentences  in  Delitzsch's  Genesis,  which  contain  that 
scholar's  solution,  if  he  was  not  prepared  to  give  one 
of  his  own  ?  What  Dr.  Driver  tells  us  in  the  text  is, 
that  ancient  historians  (including  those  of  Israel) 
habitually  claimed  the  liberty  of  composing  speeches 
for  the  personages  of  their  narratives.  But  where,  it 
may  be  replied,  is  there  any  instance  of  this  liberty 
being  used  on  such  a  large  scale  as  in  the  discourses 
of  Deuteronomy  ?  If  indeed  Ecclesiastes  had  been 
introduced  by  the  words,  "  And  Solomon  said,"  and 
inserted  in  the  Book  of  Kings,  an  Old  Testament 
parallel  would  not  be  wanting.  But  Ecclesiastes 
bears  no  such  heading,  and  was  presumably  designed 
by  the  unknown  writer  for  the  narrow  circle  of  his 
friends  or  disciples.  The  licence  appealed  to  by  Dr. 
Driver  will  hardly  bear  the  weight  which  he  puts 
upon  it.  Josiah  certainly  did  not  conceive  that  it 
was  used  in  the  composition  of  the  Book,  which  he 
received  with  alarm  as  the  neglected  law-book  written 


DRIV]  :;: 

of  old  by  Moses.  As  for  the  statement  that  the 
elements  of  the  discourses  in  Deuteronomy  were 
provided  for  the  writer  by  tradition,  if  it  means  that 
the  writer  reproduces  the  substance  of  what  Moses 
really  said,  somewhat  as  the  writer  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  is  held  to  reproduce  sayings  or  ideas  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  I  should  think  this,  historically,  a  very 
difficult  position.  This  does  indeed  appear  to  have 
been  the  belief  of  Delitzsch,  but  the  principles  which 
underlie  it  are  not  those  which  Dr.  Driver  would,  as  I 
think,  deliberately  desire  to  promote. 

Dr.  Driver's  second  argument  in  justification  of  the 
writer  of  Deuteronomy  relates  to"  the  legislative 
portion  of  the  book.  lie  says,  u  It  is  an  altogether 
false  view  of  the  laws  in  Deuteronomy  to  treat  them 
as  the  author's  '  inventions.'  Man}'  arc  repeated 
from  the  Book  of  the  Covenant ;  the  existence  of 
others  is  independently  attested  by  the  '  Law  of 
Holiness  ' :  others,  upon  intrinsic  grounds,  are  clearly 
ancient.  .  .  .  The  new  element  in  Deuteronomy  is 
thus  not  the  laws,  but  their  parenetic  setting.  Deuter- 
onomy may  be  described  as  the  prophetic  re-formu- 
lation and  adapatation  to  new  needs  of  an  older  legis- 
lation!" 

Dr.  Driver  does  almost  too  much  honour  to  a  view 
which  is  only  worthy  of  some  ill-instructed  sccul  irist 
lecturer.  The  statement  that  "the  laws  in  Deuter- 
onomy" are  "the  author's  inventions,'*  is,  i  f  course, 
utterly  erroneous.  But  Dr.  Driver's  statement  of  his 
own   opinion   may  possibly  bear  amendment,     ileat 


276      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

any  rate  appears  to  identify  himself  with  the  view  of 
Kleinert  that  Deuteronomy  consists  of  "  old  statutes 
worked  over  and  adapted  to  later  circumstances,"  x 
and  as  an  instance  of  a  law  which  has  an  ancient 
kernel,  he  proceeds  to  adduce  the  so-called  "  law  of 
the  kingdom  "  (Deut.  xvii.  14 — 20).  But  the  former 
view  seems  to  have  been  refuted  by  Kuenen,  and  on 
the  latter  I  may  appeal  to  Dillmann's  judgment  that 
"  the  law  is  new  mid  purely  Deuteronomic"  It  seems 
to  me  even  possible  that  Kleinert  and  Stade  may 
be  right  in  regarding  this  law  as  a  later  Deuteronom- 
istic  insertion.  Dr.  Driver  refers  next  to  the  "  law  of 
the  central  sanctuary  "  (Deut.  xii.  5,  &c).  He  states 
distinctly  that  it  "  appears,  in  its  exclusiveness,  to  be 
of  comparatively2  modern  origin,"  but  seems  to 
weaken  the  force  of  this  remark  by  saying  that  "  it 
only  accentuated  the  old  pre-eminence  [of  the  sanc- 
tuary where  the  ark  for  the  time  was  placed]  in  the 
interests  of  a  principle  which  is  often  insisted  on  in 
J  E,  viz.  the  separation  of  Israel  from  heathen  influ- 
ences." Surely  the  important  thing  to  know  is  that 
the  law  itself  is  not  old  but  new,  and  that  even  Isaiah 
does  not  appear  to  have  conceived  the  idea  of  a  single 
sanctuary.  "  The  one  and  essential  point,"  says  Dr. 
G.  Vos,  "  which  we  wish  the  higher  criticism  to  estab- 

1  Das  Deuteronomiwn  und  der  Deuteronomiker^.  132. 

2  I  understand  the  qualification.  But  in  view  of  the  want  of 
any  confirming  evidence  from  Isaiah,  one  may,  with  Stade, 
doubt  whether  Hezekiah  did  indeed  formally  and  absolutely 
abolish  all  the  local  sanctuaries  throughout  his  kingdom,  as  2 
Kings  xviii.  4  appears  to  state. 


DRIVER. 

lish,  is  this,  that  the  (Dcutcronomic;  Code  does  not 
fit  into  the  historical  situation,  by  which,  according  to 
its  own  testimony,  it  was  called  forth."  1  Dr.  Driver 
should,  I  think,  have  had  some  regard  to  this,  even 
though  he  was  not  directly  speaking  of  the  date  of 
the  law-book.  And  in  order  more  fully  to  represent 
the  strictly  critical  point  of  view,  he  should  (if  he  will 
excuse  me  for  seeming  to  dictate  to  him)  have 
mentioned  other  laws  besides  that  of  the  central 
sanctuary,  which,  even  if  more  or  less  developments 
of  ancient  principles,  are  held  by  consistent  critics  to 
be  of  modern  origin.2 

Upon  the  whole  I  desiderate  a  larger  theory  to 
account  for,  and  therefore  to  justify,  the  statements 
in  Deuteronomy,  "And  Moses  said,"  "And  Mo 
wrote."  May  we  perhaps  put  the  whole  matter  thus  } 
The  book  is  at  once  legal,  prophetic,  and  historical. 
Under  each  of  these  aspects  a  fully  instructed  Israelite 
might  naturally  call  it  "  Mosaic."  In  so  far  as  it  was 
legal,  it  could  be  said  that  the  author  belonged  to  the 
"  Mosaic,"  or,  as  we  may  describe  it  (in  opposition  to 
certain  "lying  pens,"  Jcr.  viii.  8),  the  "orthodox" 
school  of  legalists.  Its  priestly  author  claimed, 
virtually  at  any  rate,  the  name  of  Moses  (just  as  the 
school  of  the  prophet-reformer  Zarathustra,  not  only 
virtually,  but  actually,  called  itself  by  its  founder's 
name),  because  he  "  sat  in  Moses'  scat,"  and  con- 
tinued  the   development  of  the  antique  decisions   of 

1    The  Mosaic  Origin  of  the  Pent  ate  uchal  Codes  (1886).  p.  90. 
1  Cf.  Dillmann,  X1tm.-Deut.-J0>..  p.  604. 


278      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

the  lawgiver.  That  Deuteronomy  xii. — xxvi.  was 
intended  as  a  new  edition  of  the  old  "  Book  of  the 
Covenant,"  admits  of  no  reasonable  doubt.  It  was 
possibly  in  the  mind  of  the  author  a  "  legal  fiction," 
like  similar  developments  in  English,  and  more 
especially  in  Roman  law,1  though  this  may  not  have 
been  understood  by  Josiah.  In  so  far  as  the  book 
was  prophetic,  it  was  a  "  Mosaic  "  work,  because  its 
author  summed  up  the  religious  ideas  of  that 
prophetic  succession  of  which  Moses,  as  the  writer 
fully  believed,  was  the  head.2  And  in  so  far  as  it 
was  historical,  it  was  "  Mosaic,"  because  the  facts 
which  it  recorded  were  based  on  traditional  records 
which  the  author  believed  to  have  come  from  Moses 
or  his  circle.  Yes  ;  even  the  statement  that  Moses 
delivered  laws  to  the  people  in  the  fortieth  year  of 
the  wanderings,  has  very  probably  a  traditional  basis. 
In  JE,  as  it  stands,  both  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
(Exod.  xx.  22 — xxii.)and  the  Words  of  the  Covenant 
(Exod.  xxxiv.  10 — 28)  form  part  of  the  Sinaitic 
revelation.  But  Kuenen  has  made  it  in  a  high 
degree  plausible  that  in  the  original  JE  they  were 
revealed   indeed   at  Sinai,  but  not    promulgated  by 

1  Cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church 
(ed.  1),  p.  385. 

2  See  Deut.  xviii.  18,  "A  prophet  will  I  [from  time  to  time] 
raise  up  unto  them  .  .  .  like  unto  me."  Note  the  emphasis  laid 
upon  the  truthfulness  of  the  prophet  :  how  could  the  writer  of 
such  a  passage  be — a  "  forger  "  ?  Even  M.  Darmesteter  holds 
that  the  ideas  of  the  Book  are  derived  from  the  great  prophets 
(review  of  M.  Renan's  Histoire  (VIsrael  in  Revue  des  deux 
mo  tide s^  1  avril  1S91). 


DRIVER. 

Moses  till  just  before  the  passage  of  the  Jordan.     It 
was,  as  he  has  sought  in  a  masterly  way  to  show,  the 

Deuteronomic  writer  of  JK  who  transposed  the 
of  the  promulgation  from  Moab  to  Sinai,  thus  mal. 
room  in  the  narrative  of  the  fortieth  year  for  the  new 
edition  (as  Kuencn  well   calls   it)  of  the   Book  of  the 
Covenant  {i.e.  Deut.  xiii. — xxvi.  with  the   "  parenetic 
setting").1 

Dr.   Driver's  treatment   of   the    other  problems  o( 
Deuteronomy  shows  learning,  but  no  special  critical 
insight.     In  dealing  with   the   date  of  Deuteronomy 
xxxii.,  no  arguments  arc  adduced   from  the  religit 
contents  of  the  Song.     Indeed,  it  is  here  OIIC 
shown    how    unsatisfactory   it    is    to    treat    the    1;, 
products   of  the  old   Hebrew  poetry  srpdratc-h\      But 
let    us    pass   on    to    the    Priestly    Code.       Here 
evidence  of  date   is   abundant,   though   complicated, 
and  Dr.  Driver's  treatment  of  it  shows  him  at  his  \ 
best.     I  should  say  that  this  portion  (pp.  I  iS — 150)  is 
the  gem   of  the  whole   book.     Here  too  at   any  1 
there    is    no    deficiency  of   courage.     The    author  is 
strong    in    the    confidence    that    all    that    orthodoxy 
really  requires  is,  that  the  chief  ceremonial  instituti 
referred  to  in   P  should  be  "  ui  I  heir  Oi 
antiquity,"  and   that  the  legislation   should  be   ba 
on    legal    traditions    which,     though     modified     and 
adapted   to   new  circumstances    from   time  t>»  til 

1  Sec   Kuencn,  Hexateuch)  pp.  258—262,  and 
Exod  xxiv.  4)  cf  Cornill,  EinUitun 
Quarterly  R 


28o      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

were  yet  in  unbroken  connexion  with  Israel's  prime. 
This  he  believes  that  a  patient  criticism  can  show. 
He  is  therefore  free  to  admit  (frankly  and  without 
reserve)  that  P  in  its  completed  form  is  later  than 
Ezekiel,  who  was  the  first  to  introduce  the  radical 
distinction  between  priests  and  Levites  which  we 
find  in  P  (see  Ezek.  xliv.  6 — 16).  The  arguments  for 
a  later  date  are  so  fully  and  clearly  presented,  that  I 
can  hardly  conceive  any  fresh  mind  resisting  their 
force.  I  can  only  here  refer  to  the  linguistic  argu- 
ment. Dr.  Driver  has,  I  observe,  made  progress  since 
1882,  when  he  subjected  the  not  sufficiently  exact 
philological  argument  of  Giesebrecht  (in  Stade's 
Zeitschrift  for  1881)  to  a  somewhat  severe  criticism.1 
It  is  obvious  that  the  writer  was  still  feeling  his  way 
in  a  complicated  critical  problem,  and  did  not  as  yet 
see  distinctly  the  real  value  of  the  linguistic  argument. 
His  criticism  of  Giesebrecht's  details  is  indeed  upon 
the  whole  sound,  but,  for  all  that,  Giesebrecht  was 
right  in  his  general  principles.  It  was  Ryssel  (in  a 
somewhat  earlier  treatise,  praised  by  Dr.  Driver  in 
1882)  and  not  Giesebrecht  who  overrated  the  value 
of  the  linguistic  argument,  and  Giesebrecht  has  in  the 
article  referred  to  already,  put  forward  what  Dr. 
Driver,  in  1891,  expresses  thus  :  "The  phraseology  of 
P,  it  is  natural  to  suppose,  is  one  which  had  gradually 
formed  ;   hence  it  contains    elements    which    are    no 

1  See  reference,  p.  249  ;  and  comp.  Kuenen,  Hexateiich^  p.  291. 
Cornill  (Ei?ileitung,  p.  66)  is  slightly  too  eulogistic  towards 
Giesebrecht. 


DRIVER.  281 

doubt  ancient  side  by  side  with  those  which  were 
introduced  later.  The  priests  of  each  successive 
generation  would  adopt,  as  a  matter  of  course,  the 
technical  formulae  and  stereotyped  expressions  which 
they  learned  from  their  seniors,  new  terms,  when  they 
were  introduced,  being  accommodated  to  the  old 
moulds"  (p.   148). 

It  is  possible,  indeed,  that  Dr.  Driver,  writing  in 
1 89 1,    would    assert   the    presence   of    a    larger   tra- 
ditional   element    in    the    phraseology    of    P    than 
Giesebrecht    did,    writing    in     188 1.      But    whatever 
difference   there    may    now    exist    between    the    two 
scholars  must  be  very  small;  and   not  of  much  im- 
portance, except  to  those  who  attach  an  inordinate 
value  to  proving  the  archaic  origin  of  Jewish  ritual 
laws.     To  Dr.  Driver's  excellently  formulated  state- 
ment  I   only  desire  to  add  the  remark  of  Kuenen  : 
"  Linguistic  arguments  do  not  furnish  a  positive  or 
conclusive    argument.      But    they  do   furnish   a  very 
strong  presumption    against    the     theory    that     the 
priestly   laws    were    written    in    the    golden    age    of 
Israelitish  literature.     As  long  as  P8  [Dr.  Driver's  P] 
is   regarded   as   a   contemporary  of  Isaiah,  the   ever- 
increasing  number  of  parallels  [to  later  writers]  must 
remain   an   enigma.     A   constantly   recurring  pheno- 
menon .  .  .  must  rest  on  some  general  basis." 

On  linguistic  arguments  I  may  find  space  to  speak 
later  on.  It  is,  at  any  rate,  not  unimportant  to  know 
that  an  "induction  from  the  facts  of  the  Hebrew 
language  "  cannot  prevent  us  from  accepting  a  post- 


282      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Deuteronomic  {i.e.  post-Josian)  date  for  P,  indeed 
that  it  furnishes  good  presumptive  evidence  in  its 
favour. 

I  do  not,  however,  forget,  nor  does  Dr.  Driver,  that 
the  Priestly  Code  contains  many  very  early  elements. 
Leviticus  xi.  for  instance,  which  is  virtually  identical 
with  Deuteronomy  xiv.  4 — 20,  is,  no  doubt,  as  Kuenen 
says,  "a  later  and  amplified  edition  of  those  priestly 
decisions  on  clean  and  unclean  animals,  which  the 
Deuteronomist  adopted." 1  And  above  all,  Leviticus 
xvii. — xxvi.,  when  carefully  studied,  is  seen  to  contain 
an  earlier  stratum  of  legislation  (knovVn  as  H,  or  P1), 
which  "  exhibits  a  characteristic  phraseology,  and  is 
marked  by  the  preponderance  of  certain  characteristic 
principles  and  motives "  (p.  54).  That  the  greater 
part  of  this  collection  of  laws  dates  from  a  time 
considerably  prior  to  Ezekiel,  may  now  be  taken  as 
granted.  But  what  is  the  date  of  the  writer  who 
arranged  these  laws  in  the  existing  "  parenetic  frame- 
work "  ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  date  of  the  compila- 
tion of  H  ?  Dr.  Driver  replies  that  he  wrote  shortly 
before  the  close  of  the  monarchy ;  but  this  relatively 
conservative  conclusion  hardly  does  justice  to  the 
natural  impression  of  the  reader  that  the  predicted 
devastation  of  the  land  of  Israel  is  really  an  accom- 
plished fact.  It  appears  safer  to  hold  that  H  as 
it  stands  was  arranged  by  a  priestly  writer  in  the 
second    half    of    the    Babylonian    exile.      On    the 

1  The  Hexateuch,  p.  264. 


DRIVER.  2  .S3 

question,  When  was  H  absorbed  into  P  ?  and,  indeed, 
on  the  larger  question  of  the  later  stages  of  our 
present  Hexateuch,  Dr.  Driver  still  holds  his  opinion 
in  reserve.  No  reference  is  made  to  the  important 
narrative  in  Nchcmiah  viii.,  which  seems  the  counter- 
part of  that  in  2  Kings  xxii. 

And  now  as  to  the  character  of  the  Priestly 
Narrative.  The  view  of  things  which  this  narrative 
gives  seems,  according  to  our  author,  "  to  be  the 
result  of  a  systematizing  process  working  upon  these 
materials,  and  perhaps,  also,  seeking  to  give  sensible 
expression  to  certain  ideas  or  truths  (as,  for  instance, 
to  the  truth  of  Jehovah's  presence  in  the  midst  of 
His  people,  symbolized  by  the  '  Tent  of  Meeting,' 
surrounded  by  its  immediate  attendants,  in  the  centre 
of  the  camp),"  p.  120. 

And  in  a  footnote  he  says  that  "  it  is  difficult  to 
escape  the  conclusion  that  the  representation  of  P 
contains  elements,  not,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
word,  historical"  {e.g.  especially  in  his  chronological 
scheme,  and  in  the  numbers  of  the  Israelites. — See 
Numbers  i. — iv.]. 

Similarly,  in  speaking  of  P's  work  in  the  Book  of 
Joshua,  he  says  that,  "  the  partition  of  the  land 
being  conceived  as  ideally  effected  by  Joshua,  its 
complete  distribution  and  occupation  by  the  tribes 
are  treated  as  his  work,  and  as  accomplished  in  his 
life-time  "  (pp.  108,  109). 

Let  me  honestly  say  that  these  views,  though 
correct,    present    great    difficulties    to    those    whose 


284      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

reverence  is  of  the  old  type  ;  and  that  in  order  to 
understand,  and,  if  it  may  be,  to  justify  the  author  or 
compiler  of  P,  careful  historical  training  is  necessary. 
Dr.  Driver's  book  does  not  give  any  of  the  hints 
which  the  religious  study  of  criticism  appears  at  this 
point  to  require.  But,  no  doubt,  he  was  hampered 
equally  by  his  want  of  space  and  by  his  plan. 

As  to  the  ascription  of  the  laws  to  Moses,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  author  is  really  helpful.  He  points 
out  the  double  aspect  of  the  Priestly  Code,  which, 
though  Exilic  and  early  post-Exilic  in  its  formulation, 
is  "based  upon  pre-existing  temple-usage"  (p.  135). 
In  taking  this  view  he  is  at  one  with  critics  of  very 
different  schools,  so  that  we  may  hope  soon  to  hear 
no  more  of  the  charge  that,  according  to  the  critics, 
the  translation  of  P  was  "  manufactured "  by  the 
later  priests.  Dr.  Driver  would  rather  have  abstained 
altogether  from  touching  on  Biblical  archaeology,  his 
object  (an  impossible  one)  being  to  confine  himself 
to  the  purely  literary  aspect  of  the  Old  Testament. 
But,  as  Merx  long  ago  said,  a  purely  literary  criticism 
of  the  Hexateuch  is  insufficient.  To  show  that  there 
is  a  basis  of  early  customary  law  in  later  legal 
collections,  we  are  compelled  to  consider  historical 
analogies.  In  spite  of  Kuenen's  adverse  criticism  of 
Mr.  Fenton's  explanation  of  the  law  of  "jubilee" 
(Lev.  xxv.  8 — 55),  I  still  feel  that  there  may  be  a 
kernel  of  truth  in  it ;  and  much  more  certainly  the 
sacrificial  laws  have  a  basis  of  pre-Exilic  priestly 
ordinance.     But  can   those   institutions  and  rites  be 


DRIVER-  285 

traced  back  to  Moses  ?  Dr.  Driver  feels  it  necessary 
to  satisfy  his  readers  to  some  extent  on  this  point. 
What  he  says  is,  in  fact,  much  the  same  as  Kucncn 
said  in  the  Godsdienst  van  Israel  in  1870.1  It  is 
however  from  an  orthodox  point  of  view,  startling  ; 
and  considering  that  Kucncn  became  afterwards 
more  extreme  in  his  views,'-  Dr.  Driver  may  fairly  lay 
claim,  not  merely  to  courage  and  consistency,  but 
also  to  moderation  and  sobriety.  Certainly  I  fully 
approve  what  Dr.  Driver  has  said.  It  is  "  sober,"  i.e. 
it  does  not  go  beyond  the  facts,  nor  is  its  sobriety 
impaired  by  the  circumstance  that  the  few  facts  at 
his  disposal  have  had  to  be  interpreted  imaginatively. 
How  else,  as  I  have  said  already,  can  the  bearing  of 
these  few  precious  but  dry  facts  be  realized  ?  I  am 
only  afraid  that  some  readers  will  think  that  Moses 
was  more  systematic,  more  of  a  modern  founder  and 
organizer  than  he  can  really  have  been  ;  but  I  sus- 
pect that  a  fuller  explanation  would  show  that  there 
is  no  real  difference  between  Dr.  Driver  and  myself. 
I  am  in  full  accord  with  him  when  he  says  (in  tacit 
opposition  to  Kuenen's  later  view)  that  "the  teaching 
of  Moses  on  these  subjects  (civil  and  ceremonial 
precepts)  is  preserved  in  its  least  modified  form  in  the 
Decalogue  and  the  Book  of  the  Covenant."  It  be- 
comes any  one  to  differ  from  Kucncn  with  humility, 
but    my  own   historical    sense   emphatically  requires 


1  Kuenen,  Godsdienst  van  Israel,  i.  278 — 286  ;  ii.  209  (E.T.  i. 

2 — 290,  ii.  302\ 

-  Kuenen,  Onderzoe/c,  i.  238  {Hexateueh,  p.  244). 


286      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

that  from  the  very  beginning  there  should  have  been 
the  o-erm  of  the  advanced  "  ethical  monotheism "  of 
the  prophets  ;  and  if  only  it  be  admitted  that  even 
the  shortened  form  of  the  Decalogue  proposed  by 
Ewald *  has  probably  been  modified  (we  have  no 
right  to  equalize  Moses  with  Zoroaster),2  we  may  not 
unreasonably  suppose  that  the  "  Ten  Words "  are 
indeed  derived  from  "  Moses,  the  man  of  God,"  and 
that  the  other  similar  "  decads  "  3  were  imitated  from 
this  one.  That  Dr.  Driver  has  made  no  reference  in 
this  important  passage  to  Exodus  xv.  (in  spite  of  his 
conservative  view  on  the  authorship  of  the  Song), 
deserves  recognition. 

There  is  only  one  other  point  which  I  could  have 
wished  to  see  stated.  I  will  express  it  in  the  words 
of  Kuenen  :  "  It  is  Moses'  great  work  and  enduring 
merit — not  that  he  introduced  into  Israel  any  par- 
ticular religious  forms  and  practices,  but — that  he 
established  the  service  of  Jahveh  among  his  people 
upon  a  moral  footing."  4 

This  surely  ought  to  satisfy  the  needs  of  essential 
orthodoxy.     For  what  conservatives  want,  or  ought  to 

1  Ewald,  Geschichte,  ii.  231  (E.T.  ii.  163).  Comp.  Driver, 
Introduction,  p.  31,  with  the  accompanying  discussion  of  the  two 
traditional  texts  of  the  Decalogue.  A  conjectural  but  histori- 
cally conceivable  revision  of  Ewald's  form  of  the  Decalogue 
has  been  given  by  Mr.  Wicksteed,  The  Christian  Reformer, 
May  1886,  pp.  307— 3 1 3. 

2  See  my  article  in  Nineteenth  Century,  Dec  1891. 

3  See  Ewald,  Geschichte,  I.e.  ;  and  cf.  Wildeboer,  Theolog. 
Studien,  1887,  p.  21. 

4  Kuenen,  Religion  of  Israel,  i.  292  (Godsdienst,  i.  289). 


DRIVER.  287 

want,  is  not  so  much  to  prove  the  veracity  of  the 
Israelitish  priests,  when  they  ascribed  certain  ordi- 
nances to  Moses,  as  to  show  that  Moses  had  high 
intuitions  of  God  and  of  morality.  In  a  word,  they 
want,  or  they  ought  to  want,  to  contradict  the  view 
that  the  religion  of  Israel — at  any  rate,  between 
Moses  and  Amos — in  no  essential  respect  differed 
from  that  of  "  Moab,  Ammon,  and  Edom,  Israel's 
nearest  kinsfolk  and  neighbours." 1  Their  mistake 
has  hitherto  been  in  attributing  to  Moses  certain 
absolutely  correct  religious  and  moral  views.  In 
doing  so,  they  interfered  with  the  originality  both  of 
the  prophets  of  Israel  and  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  they 
have  to  avoid  this  in  future  by  recognizing  that 
Moses'  high  intuitions  were  limited  by  his  early  place 
in  the  history  of  Israel's  revelation. 

I  am  most  thankful  that  in  this  very  important 
matter  (which,  even  in  an  introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament  literature,  could  not  be  passed  over)  Dr. 
Driver  has  not  felt  himself  obliged  to  make  any 
deduction  from  critical  results.  The  second  chapter 
is  one  which  makes  somewhat  less  demand  than  the 
first  on  the  patient  candour  of  orthodox  readers.  It 
may  also  appear  less  interesting  until  we  have  learned 
that  the  narrative  books  are  of  the  utmost  importance 
for  Hexateuch  students,  as  supplying  the  historical 
framework  for  the  Hexateuch  records.  In  fact,  all 
the    Old    Testament    Scriptures    arc    interlaced    by 

1  Wellhausen,    Sketch  of  the   History  of  Israel  and  JudiiJi 
(1891),  p.  23. 


288      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

numberless  delicate  threads,  so  that  no  part  can  be 
neglected  without  injury  to  the  rest.  Undoubtedly, 
the  criticism  of  Judg.-Sam. -Kings  has  not  reached 
such  minute  accuracy  as  that  of  the  Hexateuch,  and 
it  was  a  disadvantage  to  Dr.  Driver  that  he  had  to 
write  upon  these  books  before  the  researches  of 
Budde  and  Cornill  (to  whom  we  may  now  add 
Kautzsch  and  Kittel)  had  attained  more  complete 
analytical  results.  Still  one  feels  that,  with  the 
earlier  pioneering  works  to  aid  him  (including  Budde's 
and  Cornill's  earlier  essays),  Dr.  Driver  could  have 
been  much  fuller,  with  more  space  and  perhaps  with 
more  courage.  At  any  rate,  the  most  essential 
critical  points  have  been  duly  indicated,  and  I 
welcome  Dr.  Driver's  second  chapter,  in  combination 
with  his  work  on  the  text  of  Samuel,  as  materially 
advancing  the  study  of  these  books  in  England.1 
A  valuable  hint  was  already  given  in  chapter  i. 
(pp.  3,  4).  With  regard  to  Judges  and  Kings  we 
are  there  told  that  "  in  each  a  series  of  older 
narratives  has  been  taken  by  the  compiler,  and  fitted 
with  a  framework  supplied  by  himself"  ;  whereas  in 
Samuel,  though  this  too  is  a  compilation,  "  the 
compiler's  hand  is  very  much  less  conspicuous  than 
is  the  case  in  Judges  and  Kings  "  (pp.  3,  4).     Of  the 

1  The  opening  chapter  of  my  own  Aids  to  the  Devout  Study 
of  Criticism  (1892),  which  contains  Kittel's  analysis  of  1  and  2 
Samuel  (in  the  German  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  edited 
by  Kautzsch),  together  with  notes  on  the  eleven  pairs  of 
"  doubtlets,"  will,  I  hope,  be  useful  as  a  supplement  to  this  part 
of  the  Introduction. 


DRIVER.  28g 

work  of  the  compiler  in  Kings,  we  are  further  told  in 
chapter  ii.  that  it  included  not  only  brief  statistical 
notices,  sometimes  called  the  "  Epitome,"  but  also  the 
introduction  of  fresh  and  "prophetic  glances  at  the 
future  "  and  the  "  amplification  "  of  already  existing 
prophecies  (see  pp.  1 78,  184,  189).  He  judges 
historical  events  by  the  standard  of  Deuteronomy, 
and  his  Deuteronomizing  peculiarities  receive  a 
careful  description,  which  is  illustrated  by  a  valuable 
list  of  his  characteristic  phrases  (with  reference  to 
Deuteronomy  and  Jeremiah).  We  are  introduced,  in 
fact,  to  what  Kleinert  calls  the  D enter onomistische 
Scliriftstcllcrei,  and  realize  how  great  must  have 
been  the  effect  of  that  great  monument  both  of 
religion  and  of  literature — the  kernel  of  our  Deuter- 
onomy. 

On  the  historical  value  of  Judges,  the  author  speaks 
cautiously,  following  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson,  who  has  re- 
marked {Expositor,  Jan.  1887)  on  the  different  points 
of  view  in  the  narratives  and  in  the  framework,  and 
who  finds  in  the  latter,  not,  strictly  speaking,  history, 
but  rather  the  "  philosophy  of  history."  To  this 
eminent  teacher  the  author  also  appeals  as  having 
already  pointed  out  the  combination  of  different 
accounts  of  the  same  facts — a  striking  phenomenon 
which  meets  us  in  a  still  greater  degree  in  the  first 
part  of  Samuel.  It  was  surely  hardly  necessary  to 
do  so.  Support  might  have  been  more  valuable  for 
the  ascription  of  the  Song  of  Hannah  to  a  later  period, 

though    here    Dr.    Driver    is    relatively   conservative. 

u 


290      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD  TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

The  other  poetical  passages  in  Samuel  have  no 
special  treatment.  Still  a  generally  correct  impres- 
sion is  given  of  the  composition  of  our  Samuel,  and 
the  praise  given  to  "  the  most  considerable  part  which 
appears  plainly  to  be  the  work  of  a  single  author  " 
(2  Sam.  ix. — xx.,  to  which  1  Kings  i.-ii.  in  the  main 
belongs)  is  not  at  all  too  high. 

It  strikes  me  however  that  in  this  chapter  Dr. 
Driver  does  not  show  as  much  courage  as  in  the  pre- 
ceding one.  Not  to  dwell  on  the  cautious  reserve 
with  which  he  alludes  to  questions  of  historicity,  I 
must  regret  that  the  duplicate  narratives  in  Samuel 
are  so  treated,  that  some  of  the  chief  critical  points 
are  missed,  and  that  the  true  character  of  the  record 
does  not  fully  appear. 

And  how  strange  it  is  to  read  of  1  Samuel  xxiv. 
and  xxvi.,  that  "whether  the  two  narratives  really 
relate  to  two  different  occasions,  or  whether  they  are 
merely  different  versions  of  the  same  occurrence,  is  a 
question  on  which  probably  opinion  will  continue  to 
be  divided"1  (p.  171)  ! 

Nor  is  anything  said  either  of  1  Samuel  xvi.  I — 13 
(the  anointing  of  David),2  or  of  the  prophecy  of 
Nathan  (2  Sam.  vii.),  except  that  the  latter  is  included 
among  the  " relatively  latest  passages"  (p.  173),  where 
I  am  afraid  that  the  reader  may  overlook  it.  The 
former  passage  was  no  doubt  difficult  to  treat  with- 

1  See  Budde,  Die  Biicher  Richter  imd  Samuel,  p.  227. 

2  It  is  less  important  that  nothing  is  said  on  the  "  doublets," 
1  Sam.  xxxi.,  2  Sam.  i.  1 — 16. 


DRIVER.  2  H 

out  a  somewhat  fuller  adoption  of  the  principles  which 
govern,  and  must  govern,  the  critical  analysis  of  the 
Hebrew  texts.  Nor  can  I  help  wondering  whether 
there  is  the  note  of  true  "  moderation  "  in  the  remark 
on  i  Kings  xiii.  i — 32,  that  it  is  ua  narrative  not 
probably  of  very  early  origin,  as  it  seems  to  date 
from  a  time  when  the  names  both  of  the  prophet 
of  Judah  and  of  the  *  old  prophet '  were  no  longer 
remembered"  (p.  183).  I  turn  to  Klostermann, 
whom  Professor  Lias  at  the  Church  Congress  of  1S91 
extolled  as  the  representative  of  common  sense 
in  literary  criticism,  and  whose  doctrinal  orthodoxy 
is  at  any  rate  above  suspicion,  and  find  these 
remarks : — 

"  The  following  narrative  in  its  present  form  comes 
in  the  main  from  a  book  of  anecdotes  from  the 
prophetic  life  of  an  earlier  period  with  a  didactic 
tendency,  designed  for  disciples  of  the  prophets.  .  .  . 
It  is  probable  that  the  reminiscence  of  Amos  iii. 
14;  vii.  16,  17;  ix.  1,  Sec,  influenced  this  narrative, 
as  well  as  the  recollection  of  fosia/is  profanation  of 
the  sanctuary  at  Bethel"  (2  Kings  xxiii.). 
&•■  So  then  this  narrative  is  later  than  the  other  Elijah 
narratives ;  is,  in  fact,  post-Deuteronomic.  To  the 
original  writer  of  2  Kings  xxii.,  xxiii.,  it  was  un- 
known. Obviously  it  occasioned  the  later  insertion 
of  2  Kings  xxiii.  16 — iS  (notice  the  apologetic  interest 
in  Lucian's  fuller  text  of  the  Septuagint  of  v,  18). 
Why  not  say  so  plainly  ? 

And  why  meet  the  irreverence  of  the  remarks  of 


292      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Ewald  and  of  Wellhausen  on  2  Kings  i.1  (an  irrever- 
ence which  is  only  on  the  surface,  and  is  excused  by 
manifest  loyalty  to  historical  truth)  by  the  some- 
thing less  than  accurate  statement  that  this  chapter 
"  presents  an  impressive  picture  of  Elijah's  inviolable 
greatness  "  (p.  185)  ? 

I  know  that  Dr.  Driver  will  reply  that  he  desired 
to  leave  historical  criticism  on  one  side.  By  so  doing 
he  would,  no  doubt,  satisfy  the  author  of  the  Impreg- 
nable Rock  of  Holy  Scripture,  who,  if  I  remember 
right,  tolerates  literary,  but  not  real  historical,  criti- 
cism. But  Dr.  Driver  has  already  found  in  chapter  i. 
that  the  separation  cannot  be  maintained.  Why 
attempt  what  is  neither  possible,  nor  (if  I  may  say 
so)  desirable,  in  chapter  ii.  ?  Here  let  me  pause  for 
awhile  ;  the  first  section  of  my  critical  survey  is  at 
an  end.  But  I  cannot  pass  on  without  the  willing 
attestation  that  the  scholarly  character  of  these  two 
chapters  is  high,  and  that  even  the  author's  com- 
promises reveal  a  thoughtful  and  conscientious  mind. 
May  his  work  and  mine  alike  tend  to  the  hallowing 
of  criticism,  to  the  strengthening  of  spiritual  faith, 
and  to  the  awakening  in  wider  circles  of  a  more 
intelligent  love  for  the  records  of  the  Christian 
revelation. 

1  See  Ewald,  History,  iv.  112  ;  Wellhausen,  Die  Composition 
des  Hexateuchs,  &c,  pp.  284-5.  The  fundamental  reverence 
of  all  Ewald's  Biblical  work  is,  I  presume,  too  patent  to  be 
denied.  He  would  not  have  spoken  as  he  did  on  2  Kings  i. 
without  <rood  cause. 


CHAPTER    XII. 

DRIVER    (2). 

I  VENTURE  by  way  of  preface  to  express  the  hope 
that  whatever  I  say  here  may  be  read  in  the  light  of 
the  introductory  pages  of  chapter  xi.  The  book  before 
us  is  not  only  full  of  facts  but  characterized  by  a 
thoroughly  individual  way  of  regarding  its  subject. 
This  individuality  I  have  endeavoured  to  sketch  with 
a  free  but  friendly  hand.  If  the  reader  has  not 
followed  me  in  this,  he  may  perhaps  misinterpret  the 
remarks  which  this  part  of  my  study  contains.  It  is 
only  worth  while  for  me  to  differ  from  Dr.  Driver 
because  at  heart  I  am  at  one  with  him,  and  on  many 
important  points  we  agree.  And  I  am  reconciled  to 
a  frequent  difference  of  opinion  both  as  a  critic  and 
to  some  extent  as  a  theologian  by  the  thought  that 
in  our  common  studies  it  is  by  the  contact  of  trained 
and  disciplined  "  subjectivities  "  that  true  progress  is 
made. 

In  the  first  two  chapters  of  the  Introduction,  a  part 
of  which  I  have  called  "  the  gem  of  the  book."  Dr. 
Driver  takes  the  student  as  near  as  possible  to  the 


294      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD  TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

centre  of  the  problems.  I  do  not  think  that  this  is 
equally  the  case  throughout  the  remainder  of  the 
work.  But  I  am  very  far  from  blaming  the  author 
for  this  relative  inferiority  of  the  following  chapters. 
His  narrow  limits,  which  he  refers  to  in  the  preface, 
go  a  long  way  towards  accounting  for  this.  And  if 
I  add  another  explanation  which  seems  here  and 
there  to  be  applicable,  it  is  not  in  the  spirit  of  oppo- 
sition. Let  me  confess,  then,  that  some  problems  of 
not  inconsiderable  importance  are  neglected,  possibly 
because  Dr.  Driver's  early  formed  linguistic  habits  of 
mind  hinder  him  from  fully  grasping  the  data  for 
their  solution.  The  reader  will  see  what  I  mean 
presently. 

Let  us  now  resume  our  survey.  Chapter  iii. 
relates  to  the  very  important  Book  of  Isaiah.  I  need 
not  say  that  it  is  a  very  careful  and  solid  piece  of 
work  ;  and  yet  nowhere,  as  it  seems  to  me,  do  the 
limitations  of  Dr.  Driver's  criticism  come  more  clearly 
into  view.  How  inadequate,  for  instance,  is  his  treat- 
ment of  chap,  i.,  the  prologue,  presumably,  of  a 
larger  collection  of  Isaiah's  prophecies !  Has  it,  or 
has  it  not,  more  than  a  literary  unity  ?  The  question 
is  not  even  touched.  And  what  is  the  date  of  its 
composition  or  redaction  ?  Two  dates  are  mentioned, 
but  without  sufficient  explanation,  and  no  decision 
between  them  is  made.1    Is  this  a  laudable  "sobriety" 

1  The  reference  (p.  196,  foot)  to  Gesenius,  Delitzsch,  and  Dill- 
mann  as  having  advocated  this  date  is  hardly  correct.  Gesenius 
says  {Jesaia,  i.   148),  "  For  Jotham  I  find  no  grounds  adduced." 


driver;  295 

and  "judicial  reserve"?     It  would  be  an   illusion  to 
think  so.     And  yet,  even  here  there  is  an  indication 
that   the   author   has    progressed    since    1888.      The 
curiously  popular  reason   offered   (but  "  without   any 
confidence")    in     Isaia/i,    p.     20,    for     assigning    this 
prophecy  to  the  reign  of  Jotham  is  silently  withdrawn. 
And  just  so  (to  criticize  myself  as  well  as  the  author) 
I  have  long  ago  ceased  to  assign  Isaiah  i.  to  the  time 
of  a  supposed  invasion  of  Judah  by  Sargon.     I  might 
of  course  fill  many  pages  were  I  to  follow  Dr.  Driver 
through    the    Book   of    Isaiah  step     by   step.     This 
being  impossible,  I  will  confine  myself  to  the  most 
salient  points  of  his  criticism.     There  is  much  to  con- 
tent even  a  severe  judge  ;  how  excellent,  for  instance, 
are  the  remarks  on  the  origin  of  Isaiah  xv.-xvi.!     Nor 
will   I   blame  the  author  much  for  not  alluding   to 
what    some    may   call    hypercritical    theories ;    it    is 
rather    his    insufficient     reference    to    familiar    and 
inevitable  problems  which  I  am  compelled  to  regret. 
Nothing,  for  instance,  is  said  of  the  difficult  problem 
of  Isaiah  xix.  16 — 25.     It  may  be  urged  by  the  author 
that    Kuenen    himself  pronounces    in   favour  of  the 
integrity  of  the    chapter,1    and    that    such  a    careful 
scholar  as  Prof.  Whitehouse  has   recently  expressed 

Uelitzsch  (fes.,  p.  68),  "  The  date  of  this  first  prophecy  is  a 
riddle,"  but  at  any  rate  it  seems,  he  thinks,  to  belong  to  u  the 
time  after  Uzziah  and  Jotham."  Dillmann  (Jes.,  p.  2)  refers  Isa. 
i.  to  the  Syro-Ephniimitish  war,  but  he  states  emphatically  (p. 
63)  that  though  the  hostilities  began  under  Jotham,  they  were 
not  very  serious  till  the  reign  of  Aha/. 
1  Onderzoek.  ii.  71,  72. 


296      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

his  surprise  at  the  continued  doubts  of  some  critics.1 
That  is  true,  but  it  should  be  added  that  Kuenen  fully 
admits  the  strength  of  the  critical  arguments  on  the 
opposite  side,  and  that  Prof.  Whitehouse  pronounces 
judgment  before  he  has  fully  heard  the  case. 

Nor  can  I  help  being  surprised  (in  spite  of  the 
anticipatory  "  plea "  offered  in  the  preface)  at  Dr. 
Driver's  incomplete  treatment  of  Isaiah  xxiii.,  and 
for  the  same  reason,  viz.  that  its  problems  are 
familiar  ones.  I  will  not  here  argue  the  case  in 
favour  of  the  theory  of  editorial  manipulation.  But 
among  the  stylistic  phenomena  which  point  to  another 
hand  than  Isaiah's  I  may  at  least  mention  ^Pp 
(v.  11),  Bf«np?  and  ETC*1?  PTTDJ  (y.  13),  HDDD  (J.  Vs). 
And  why  should  the  unintelligent  ridicule  directed 
against  so-called  "  divination  "  and  "  guesswork  " 
prevent  me  from  attaching  weight  to  the  impression 
of  so  many  good  critics  that  Isaiah  never  (if  I  may 
use  the  phrase)  "  passed  this  work  for  publication"  ? 
Verses  15  — 18  are  doubtless  a  post-Exilic  epilogue2 
("  doubtless  "  from  the  point  of  view  of  those  who 
have  already  satisfied  themselves  of  the  existence  of 
much  besides  that  is  post-Exilic  in  pre-Exilic  works). 
Verse  13  is  written  by  one  who  has  both  Isaiah's 
phrases  and  those  of  other  writers  in  his  head  ;  it  may 
of  course   even  be  an   Isaianic  verse  recast.     Verses 

1  Critical  Review,  Jan.  1892,  p.  10.  The  case  for  disintegra- 
tion is  much  stronger  than  this  writer  supposes,  nor  are  the 
familiar  arguments  adduced  by  him  conclusive 

2  My  own  original  view  (in  Isaiah  Chro7iologically  Arranged), 
from  which  I  ought  not  to  have  swerved. 


DRIVER.  297 

I — 12,  1 4  are  too  fine  (such  is  my  own  impression)  for 
Jeremiah,  and  now  that  it  is  certain  (see  Niese's  text 
of  Josephus)  that  Menander,  quoted  in  Jos.,  A  fit.  ix. 
14,  2,  referred  to  Shalmaneser  by  name  (^e\a^\j/as) 
as  the  besieger  of  Tyre,  there  seems  good  reason  to 
believe  that  Isaiah  really  wrote  Isaiah  xxiii.  1  — 14, 
but  in  a  form  not  entirely  identical  with  our  present 
text.1 

Thus  much  on  Dr.  Driver's  treatment  of  the 
generally  acknowledged  prophecies  of  Isaiah.  With 
a  word  of  hearty  praise  to  the  useful  criticism  of 
chaps,  xxxvi. — xxxix.  (in  which  I  only  miss  a  reference 
to  the  debate  as  to  the  Song  of  Hezckiah),  I  pass  on 
to  that  large  portion  of  the  book  which  is  of  disputed 
origin.  Here  I  have  been  specially  anxious  to  notice 
any  signs  of  advance,  for  it  is  Dr.  Driver's  treatment 
of  these  chapters  in  his  earlier  book  which  prevents 
me  from  fully  endorsing  Dr.  Sanday's  eulogy  of  that 
work  in  the  preface  to  Tlie  Oracles  of  God.  First  of 
all,  however,  I  must  make  some  reference  to  a  passage 
on  which  I  have  myself  unwittingly  helped  to  lead 
the  author  astray.  It  is  one  which  most  critics  have 
denied  to  Isaiah  and  grouped  with  xiii.  1 — xiv.  23,  but 
which,  following  Kleinert,  I  thought  in  1SS1  might  be 
reclaimed  for  that  prophet  by  the  help  of  Assyriology 
— the  "oracle    on  the  wilderness    by  the  sea"  (xxi. 

1  The  adaptation  of  Isaiah's  prophecy  to  post-Exilir  readers 
will  be  like  Isaiah's  adaptation  of  an  old  prophecy  on  Moab  in 
chaps,  xv.,  xvi.  (if  Dr.  Driver  is  right  in  agreeing  with  me.  p.  203, 
which  is,  however,  questionable). 


298      FOUNDERS   OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

I — 10).  Dr.  Driver  mentions  (p.  205)  the  chief  reasons 
for  thinking  that  the  siege  of  Babylon  referred  to  in 
this  passage  is  one  of  the  three  which  took  place  in 
Isaiah's  lifetime,  and  tells  us  that  in  his  earlier  work 
he  followed  me  in  adopting  this  theory,  but  adds  that 
it  has  not  found  favour  with  recent  writers  on  Isaiah. 
With  these  "  recent  writers "  I  myself  now  fully 
agree.  I  adopted  Kleinert's  (or,  more  strictly,  George 
Smith's  x)  theory  as  a  part  of  a  connected  view  of  a 
group  of  prophecies  of  Isaiah  (including  x.  5 — 33  and 
xxii.  1 — 14),  and  I  understood  the  words  "  O  my 
threshed  and  winnowed  one "  (xxi.  10)  to  refer  to 
Sargon's  supposed  invasion  of  Judah.  A  change  in 
my  view  of  these  prophecies,  however,  naturally  led 
me  to  reconsider  the  date  of  the  prophecy  xxi.  1 — 10, 
which  I  now  understand  as  written  at  the  close  of  the 
Exile  ("  Elam  "  in  z^.  2  =  "  Anzan,"  of  which  Cyrus 
was  king  before  he  conquered  Media).  The  strange 
thing  to  me  is  that  Dr.  Driver  should  ever  have 
agreed  with  me  :  1.  because,  as  I  warned  the  student, 
there  were  "  reasons  of  striking  plausibility  "  for  not 
separating  this  prophecy  from  the  other  prophecies  on 
Babylon  which  were  undoubtedly  not  of  Isaiah's  age  ; 
2.  because  Dr.  Driver  differed  from  me  as  to  the  reality 
of  Sargon's  supposed  invasion,  and  had  therefore  a 
much  less  strong  case  to  offer  for  the  new  theory. 
The  truth  is  that  the  author  was  biassed  by  a  false 
apologetic  and  an  imperfect  critical  theory.  Isa.  xxi. 
I — 10  could  hardly  refer  to  the  capture  of  Babylon 

1  Transactions  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archceology,  ii.  329. 


DRIVER.  299 

in     53S.     Why?     Because,    "firstly,     no     intelligible 

purpose  would  be  subserved  by  Isaiah's  announcing 
to  the  generation  of  Hczekiah  an  occurrence  lying 
nearly  200  years  in  the  future,"  &c.  {hit rod.  205).  In 
other  words,  Dr.  Driver  quietly  assumes  (inconsist- 
ently, I  gladly  admit,  with  his  own  words  on  Isaiah 
xiii.  2,  &c.)  that  Isaiah  xxi.  1  — 10  must  be  Isaiah's 
work,  or,  at  least,  that  any  other  view  is  too  improbable 
to  mention.  And  in  order  to  interpret  the  prophecy 
in  accordance  with  an  isolated  part  of  Klcinert's  and 
of  my  own  former  theory,  he  is  forced  to  interpret  "O 
my  threshed  one"  in  v.  10  as  a  prediction  ("he 
foresees  the  sufferings  which  the  present  triumph  of 
Assyria  will  entail  upon  them,"  &c.,  p.  205),  whereas 
the  only  natural  view  of  the  words  is  that  which 
explains  them  as  descriptive  of  past  sufferings.  It  is 
important  to  add  that  Dr.  Driver  seems  now  inclined 
to  retreat  from  his  former  position  (which  was  in  the 
main  my  own),  though  he  does  not  mention  the 
mixture  of  Isaianic  and  non-Isaianic  phenomena  in 
the  passage.  Bishop  Ellicott  may  perhaps  be  severe 
on  our  supposed  changeableness.  But  if  he  will  refer 
to  my  own  Isaiah  (cd.  3,  vol.  i.  p.  127),  he  will  find 
these  words,  "  I  gladly  admit  that  a  further  knowledge 
of  the  circumstances  of  the  Jews  might  conceivably 
enable  us  to  reconcile  the  prophecy  with  a  date  at 
the  close  of  the  Exile."  Here  there  was  no  dog- 
matism, no  determination  to  treat  the  point  as  finally 
settled.  And  undue  dogmatism  is,  I  am  sure,  not  less 
abhorrent  to  Dr.  Driver  than  to  myself. 


300      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD  TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Next  with  regard  to  the  more  commonly  contro- 
verted prophecies  in  Isaiah  i. — xxxix.  The  remarks 
on  Isaiah  xiii.  I — xiv.  23  are  excellent.  If  they 
appear  to  any  one  somewhat  popular  and  obvious,  let 
it  be  remembered  that  this  section  is  the  first  of  those 
which  are  written  from  an  Exilic  point  of  view.  It 
was  therefore  specially  needful  to  be  popular  ;  I  only 
regret  not  to  find  it  pointed  out  that  whatever  you 
say  about  the  prophecy,  to  assign  an  ode  like  that  in 
Isaiah  xiv.  4 — 21  to  Isaiah  is  the  very  height  of  un- 
reason. Dr.  Driver's  treatment  of  the  other  prophecies 
shows  increased  definiteness  and  insight.  Chapters 
xxxiv.  and  xxxv.  were  not  expressly  dated  in  the 
Isaiah;  they  are  now  referred  to  the  period  of  the 
Exile,  and  grouped  with  Isaiah  xiii.  2,  &c,  and 
Jeremiah  1.,  li.  This  however  is  not  a  sufficient  step 
in  advance.  Long  ago  (see  Isaiah  i.  194)1  I  ventured 
to  maintain  that  these  chapters  are  post-Exilic  works 
of  the  imitative  school  of  prophecy,  and  ten  years 
have  only  deepened  my  convictions.  Dr.  Driver  may 
indeed  claim  for  his  own  view  the  high  authority  of 
Dillmann,  who  thinks  that  the  phenomena  of  these 
chapters  "  bring  us  at  any  rate  to  the  close  of  the 
Exile,"  but  would  it  not  have  been  well  to  give  the 
grounds  of  that  cautious  critic's  significant  qualifi- 
cation {jedenfalls)  ?     Let    us  pass   on  now  to  chaps. 

1  See  Ency.  Brit.,  art.    "Isaiah"   (1881)  ;  Jewish   Quarterly 
Review,  July  1891,  p.  102  ;  Jan.  1892,  p.  332  ;  and  cf.  Dillmann, 
Jesaja,  p.   302  ;  Kuenen,  Oiiderzoek,  ii.  91 — 93  ;  Griitz,  Jewish 
Quarterly  Review,  Oct.  1891,  pp.  1 — 8. 


DRIVER.  301 

xxiv. — xxvii. — a  dangerous  hunting-ground  for  young 
scholars  in  search  of  distinction,  as  Mr.  W.  E.  Barnes 
has  lately  proved  by  his  elaborate  defence  of  Isaiah's 
authorship  of  these  chapters  against  all  modern  critics 
(including  among  these  even  Delitzsch).1  Dr.  Driver 
himself,  though  not  a  young  scholar,  was  led  astray 
for  a  time  by  the  same  spirit  of  compromise  which 
has  so  often  injured  him  as  a  critic.  In  1888  he  was 
"  disposed  "  (as  he  remarks,  p.  209)  "  to  acquiesce  in 
the  opinion  that  it  might  have  been  written  on  the 
eve  of  the  Exile,"  a  most  unfortunate  and  scarcely 
critical  opinion  which  isolated  the  author  from  his 
natural  allies.  The  consequences  of  this  violation 
of  all  historical  probability  has  since  then  become 
visible  to  the  author,  who  remarks  that  this  prophecy 
"  differs  so  widely  from  the  other  prophecies  of  this 
period  (Jer.  Ezek.)  that  this  view  can  scarcely  be 
maintained.  There  are  features  in  which  it  is  in 
advance  not  merely  of  Isaiah,  but  even  of  Deutero- 
Isaiah.  It  may  be  referred  most  plausibly  to  the 
early  post-Exilic  period"  (p.  210).  Well,  perhaps  it 
may  — for  the  present.  At  any  rate,  Dr.  Driver  grants 
that  a  post-Exilic  writing  has  found  its  way  into  the 
Book  of  Isaiah.  I  am  not  without  hope  that  further 
study  of  the  later  prophetic  writings  and  of  the  post- 

1  Delitzsch,  it  is  true,  had  not  made  himself  fully  at  home  in 
the  results  of  that  criticism  to  which  he  was  so  late  a  convert. 
He  can  only  satisfy  himself  that  the  author  is  "not  Isaiah  him- 
self, but  a  disciple  of  Isaiah  who  here  surpasses  the  master."' 
But  he  is  not  only  a  disciple  of  Isaiah,  but  of  other  prophets  too 
(see  Dr.  Driver's  selection  of  allusiu: 


302      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

Exilic  period  in  general  may  convince  him  that  he  is 
still  somewhat  too  cautious,  and  that  the  ideas  of 
this  singular  but  most  instructive  prophecy  can  only 
be  understood  as  characteristic  of  the  later  Persian 
age.  Far  be  it  from  any  one  to  disparage  this  period. 
The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  was  not  suddenly  straitened  ; 
the  period  of  artificial  prophecy  (artificial  from  a 
literary  point  of  view)  was  not  without  fine  monu- 
ments of  faith  and  hope  and  religious  thought.  But 
to  carry  this  subject  further  would  compel  me  to  enter 
into  the  history  of  religious  ideas,1  and  to  exceed  the 
limits  of  this  review. 

And  now  we  can  no  longer  avoid  applying  to  the 
author  one  of  the  crucial  tests  of  criticism,  and  ask, 
How  does  he  stand  in  relation  to  the  critical  problems 
of  Isaiah  xl. — lxvi.  ?  That  Dr.  Driver  neither  could  nor 
would  assign  these  chapters  to  Isaiah  was  indeed  well 
known  from  his  Isaiah,  nor  need  I  stint  my  eulogy  of 
the  general  treatment  of  Isaiah  xl. — lxvi.  in  that  book 
as  compared  with  most  other  popular  works  on  the 
subject.  Very  heartily  do  I  wish  the  Isaiah  a  long 
career  of  usefulness.  For  though  unsophisticated 
common  sense  may  recognize  at  once  that  these 
chapters  can  no  more  have  been  written  by  Isaiah 
than  Psalm  cxxxvii.  can  have  been  written  by  David, 
there  are  still,  I  fear,  not  many  persons  like  "  my 
friend  A,  who,  reading  more  than  twenty  years  ago 
the  Book  of  the  Prophet  Isaiah,  and  passing  without 

1  Comp.  my  Bampton  Lectures,  pp.  120,  133,  402,  403. 


DRIVER.  303 

pause  from  the  39th  to  the  40th  chapter,  was  suddenly 
struck  with  amazement  and  the  conviction  that  it  was 
impossible  that  one  man  should  have  written  both 
chapters."  'L  In  such  a  brilliantly  intellectual  paper 
as  the  Spectator  it  is  still  possible  to  read  vehement 
defences  of  the  unity  of  authorship,  and  who  can 
wonder  that  less  literary  Bible-students,  in  spite  of 
their  "  English  common  sense,"  cling  to  the  same 
belief?  It  is  very  necessary  therefore  for  some  com- 
petent scholar  like  Dr.  Driver  to  remedy,  so  far  as  he 
can,  what  may  be  called  the  sophistication  of  our 
native  good  sense.  Still  an  older  student  of  Isaiah 
xl. — lxvi.  maybe  permitted  to- regret  the  imperfection 
of  Dr.  Driver's  work.  To  treat  Isaiah  xl. — lxvi.  as  a 
11  continuous  prophecy,"  written  from  the  same  his- 
torical and  religious  standpoint,  and  dealing  through- 
out with  a  common  theme,  is  a  retrograde  policy 
which  I  cannot  help  lamenting.  As  long  as  this 
theory  was  advocated  in  a  semi-popular  work,  it  was 
possible  to  hold  that  Dr.  Driver  adopted  it  from 
educational  considerations.  There  is,  of  course,  no 
competent  teacher  who  does  not  sometimes  have  to 
condescend  to  the  capacities  of  his  pupils.  It  is  no 
doubt  easier  for  a  beginner  to  take  in  the  view  of 
what  I  have  heard  called  the  "  dual  authorship  of  the 
Book  of  Isaiah  "  than  a  more  complicated,  even  though 
a  sounder  theory.  But  when  the  statements  of  Dr. 
Driver's  Isaiah  are  repeated  in  a  work  which  aims  at 

2  From  a  letter  signed  "  Hope  ':  in  the  Times,  Jan.  7,  1S92. 


304      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

"  representing  the  present  condition  of  investigation," 
it  becomes  more  difficult  to  account  for  them.  For 
the  progress  of  exegesis  has  revealed  the  fact  that 
there  are  several  striking  breaks  in  the  continuity, 
changes  in  the  tone  and  the  historical  situation,  modi- 
fications of  the  religious  ideas.  "  Revealed  "  may  seem 
a  strong  word,  but  the  truth  is  that  though  some  early 
critics  had  a  glimpse  of  these  facts,  the  knowledge 
was  lost  again  in  a  very  natural  rebound  from  the 
pernicious  extreme  of  the  fanatical  disintegrators.  It 
was  Ewald  who  rectified  the  new  error  of  Gesenius 
and  Hitzig,  and  the  example  of  moderate  disintegra- 
tion set  by  him  was  followed,  not  of  course  without 
very  much  variety  of  view,  by  Bleek,  Geiger,  Oort, 
Kuenen,  Stade,  Dillmann,  Cornill,  Budde,  and  in 
England  by  myself  in  1881,  and  by  Mr.  G.  A.  Smith 
in  1890.  The  principal  exegetical  facts  which  require 
disintegration  will  be  found  in  my  own  commentary 
on  Isaiah  (1880- 1 881),  my  own  latest  explanation  of 
them  in  two  published  academical  lectures.1     I  have 

1  See/ewzsk  Quarterly  Review,  July  and  Oct.  1891.  Budde 
approaches  very  near  to  me,  confirming  his  view  by  his  re- 
searches into  the  "elegiac  rhythm"  (Stade's  Z/.,  1891,  p.  242). 
Those  who  wish  for  bolder  theories  may  go  to  Kuenen  and 
Cornill.  The  gradualness  of  Kuenen's  advance  adds  special 
weight  to  his  opinions.  I  will  not  deny  the  plausibility  of  his 
arguments,  especially  in  the  light  of  a  more  advanced  view  of 
the  date  of  Job.  But  I  can  only  write  according  to  the  light 
which  I  have  at  the  time.  [Duhm's  masterly  treatment  of  Isa. 
xl. — lxvi.  in  his  commentary,  which  has  lately  appeared,  will 
surely  force  a  reconsideration  of  the  subject,  and  put  an  end  to 
the  indifference  of  English  critics.     Nov.  1892.] 


DRIVER.  305 

no  feverish  anxiety  to  make  converts  ;  I  am  perfectly 
willing  to  be  converted  to  other  theories  by  more 
acute  and  thorough  critics  than  myself.  But  what  is 
desirable  is  this  :  that  the  exegctical  facts  which  so 
many  trained  critics  have  noticed  should  be  recognized 
and  critically  explained  by  all  earnest  scholars,  and 
that  some  credit  both  for  priority  among  recent 
analysts  and  for  caution  and  moderation  should  be 
awarded  where  it  is  due.  Such  remarks  as  these 
ought  to  be  impossible  in  the  principal  literary  organ 
of  Anglican  Churchmen  :  "We  think  that  there  is  at 
present  in  some  quarters  ['  another  professor '  had 
been  already  indicated]  a  readiness  to  break  up  works 
on  utterly  insufficient  grounds,  which  is  almost  wan- 
tonly provoking,  and  we  are  heartily  glad  that  Dr. 
Driver  gives  no  countenance  whatever  to  such  a 
proceeding."  l 

The  pretension  here  and  elsewhere  set  up  on  behalf 
of  Dr.  Driver  is  doubtless  most  repugnant  to  that 
candid  scholar,  but  it  is,  I  fear,  his  own  imperfect 
exhibition  of  the  "  present  condition  of  investigation  " 
which  has  produced  the  serious  errors  and  illusions  of 
a  conscientious  but  ill-informed  writer. 

I  will  now  advance  a  step.  It  is  in  the  interests, 
not  only  of  criticism,  but  also  of  that  very  view  of 
the  "  prophecy  of  restoration  "  which  Dr.  Driver  him- 
self values  so  highly,  that  I  venture  to  criticize  his 
treatment  of  Isaiah  xl. — lxvi.      For  although  there  is 

1  Guardian^  Dec.  2,  1S91  (p.  1953). 


306      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD  TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

much  in  these  chapters  which,  as  conservative  scholars 
admit,  may  be  taken  to  favour  an  Exilic  date,  there 
are  also,  as  they  rightly  maintain,  other  phenomena 
which  seem  inconsistent  with  this  date.  Dr.  Driver 
has,  of  course,  an  explanation  for  those  phenomena 
which  do  not  altogether  suit  him,  and  so,  too,  have 
his  conservative  opponents  for  those  which  do  not 
suit  them.  It  is  impossible  therefore  that  either  side 
should  gain  an  undisputed  victory.1  Seeing  this,  the 
moderate  disintegrating  critics  intervene  with  an 
eirenicon  ;  why  should  not  Dr.  Driver  join  them,  and 
claim  for  himself  a  share  in  the  blessing  of  the 
peace-makers  ?  There  is  room  enough  for  the 
linguistic  and  the  rhythmical  keys,  as  well  as  for  that 
which  I  myself  chiefly  applied  to  these  problems. 
But  I  will  not  dwell  longer  on  this  thorny  subject. 

The  next  prophets  in  order  are  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel.  On  these  the  "  higher  criticism  "  has  less  to 
say  than  on  the  Book  of  Isaiah.  With  regard  to 
Jeremiah  x.  I — 16,  Dr.  Driver  tells  us  that  either  it 
belongs  to  the  latter  part  of  Jeremiah's  career,  or  it 
is  the  work  of  a  prophet  at  the  close  of  the  Exile. 
But  why  hesitate  ?  Surely  the  two  theories  are  not 
equally  probable,  and  interesting  as  the  linguistic 
remarks  on    the    interpolated   Aramaic  verse  (v.  1 1) 

1  Even  if  it  be  granted  that  Isaiah  xl. — lxvi.  is  not  Isaiah's 
work,  there  is  no  absolute  necessity  to  adopt  Dr.  Driver's  view. 
For  it  may  be  asked,  May  not  the  prophecy  be  a  work  of  the 
restoration-period ?  (So  not  only  Seinecke  but  Isidore  Loeb, 
Revue  des  etudes  jaives,  juillet-sept.  1891.)  My  own  answer,  of 
course,  is  ready  ;  but  what  can  Dr.  Driver  say  ? 


DRIVER.  307 

may  be,  arc  they  not  somewhat  out  of  place  ?  At 
any  rate  the  facts  want  a  little  more  theory  to 
illuminate  them.  Nor  arc  they  complete.  If  NpTH 
occurs  in  x.  11  at  is  not  the  ordinary  form  ST*N  found 
in  x.  1 1  b  ?  And  does  not  the  less  usual  form  occur 
in  the  Midrashim  (e.  g.  Ber.  A'.  13;?  Moreover, 
does  not  the  suffix  rz'in  deserve  mention  ?  It  agrees 
with  the  Aramaic  part  of  Ezra,  but  not  with  that  of 
Daniel l  (which  always  gives  fin).  I  do  not  (as  the 
reader  will  see  later)  undervalue  linguistic  data  ;  but 
would  not  these  particular  facts  have  been  more  in 
place  in  the  great  forthcoming  Hebrew  Dictionary  ? 
And  why  is  there  no  reference  to  Mr.  Ball's  somewhat 
elaborate  discussion  of  chap.  x.  in  his  contribution  to 
the  Expositor  s  Bible  ?  -  Consider  how  much  else 
has  been  "  crowded  out."  For  instance,  though 
perhaps  enough  is  said  of  the  two  texts  of  Jeremiah 
(Dr.  Driver,  on  the  whole,  prefers  the  Hebrew; 
Cornill  the  Greek  text),  there  is  no  sufficient  dis- 
cussion of  the  method  and  plan  of  Jeremiah's  editor, 
nor  are  any  hints  given  with  regard  to  possible  inter- 
polations other  than  those  to  which  the  Septuagint 
can  guide  us  [e.g.  xvii.  19 — 27).  Another  interesting 
question  (raised  by  Schwally)  is  that  of  the  authorship 
of  Jeremiah  xxv.  and  xlvi. — li.  Though  Jeremiah 
l.-li.  is  fully  admitted     on  grounds  which  supplement 

1  Mr.  Bevan  omits  to  notice  this  point  in  his  excellent  work 
on  Daniel  (p.  36). 

1  Mr.  Ball's  Jeremiah  has  escaped  the  notice  of  the  author, 
who  takes  such  pleasure  in  recognizing  English  work. 


308      FOUNDERS  OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

those  given  in  1885  in  my  Pulpit  Commentary)  to 
be  Exilic,  the  larger  problem  is  not  referred  to.  On 
the  contents  of  Ezekiel,  too,  much  more  might  have 
been  said.  There  are  difficulties  connected  with  the 
question  of  Ezekiel's  editorial  processes — difficulties 
exaggerated  by  a  too  brilliant  Dutch  scholar  (A. 
Pierson),  and  yet  grave  enough  to  be  mentioned. 
But  of  course  a  difference  of  judgment  as  to  the 
selection  of  material  is  occasionally  to  be  expected. 
At  any  rate,  valuable  help  is  given  on  Ezekiel  xl. — 
xlviii.,  which,  by  an  instructive  exaggeration,  some 
one  has  called  "  the  key  to  the  Old  Testament." x  It 
remains  for  some  future  scholar  to  rediscover  this 
great  pastor,  patriot,  and  prophet.2 

The  Minor  Prophets  are  by  no  means  all  of  them 
either  of  minor  importance  or  of  minor  difficulty.3 
In  some  cases,  it  is  true,  the  date  and  authorship  are 
on  the  whole  free  from  difficulty.  Hence  in  treating 
of  Hosea,  Amos,  Nahum,  Habakkuk,  Zephaniah, 
Haggai,  and  Malachi,  it  is  the  contents  and  special 
characteristics  of  the  books  to  which  Dr.  Driver 
mainly  directs  his  attention.  Not  that  there  are  no 
critical  questions  of  any  moment  {e.g.  the  question  of 

1  J.  Orth,  ap.  Wellhausen,  Prolegomena,  p.  447. 

2  Prof.  Davidson's  Ezekiel  (in  the  Cambridge  Biblical  series) 
has  not  yet  (November  1892)  come  into  my  hands. 

3  I  venture  to  regret  that  no  mention  is  made  of  Renan's 
interesting  study  on  the  Minor  Prophets  in  the  Journal  des 
savants,  Nov.  1888.  Renan  may  have  great  faults,  but  cannot 
be  altogether  ignored.  Taylor's  Text  of  Micah  (1891)  might 
also  claim  mention.  [Wellhausen's  small  but  important  work, 
Die  kleinen  Propheten,  has  just  come  to  hand,  Nov.  1892.] 


DRIVER.  309 

interpolations  or  later  insertions),  but,  as  a  rule, 
they  are  of  a  class  in  which  the  author  is  not  as  yet 
much  interested.  It  were  ungracious  to  touch  upon 
them  here,  except  in  the  case  of  Habakkuk  iii.  In 
omitting  all  criticism  of  the  heading  of  this  ode,  or 
psalm,  Dr.  Driver  seems  to  me  inconsistent  with 
himself;  for  though  he  leaves  the  authorship  of  the 
"  Song  of  Hezekiah  "  unquestioned,  he  has  no  scruple 
In  holding  that  the  psalm  in  Jonah  ii.  was  not  the 
work  of  Jonah.1  In  the  "  present  state  of  critical 
investigation  "  it  has  become  almost  equally  difficult 
to  defend  tradition  in  any  one  of  these  cases. 
Certainly  neither  the  expressions  nor  the  ideas  of 
Habakkuk  iii.  agree  with  those  of  Habakkuk  i.,  ii.  ; 
they  favour  a  post-Exilic  rather  than  a  pre-Exilic 
date.  The  most  reasonable  view  is  that  both  the 
psalms  of  Hezekiah  and  that  of  Habakkuk  once 
formed  part  of  a  liturgical  collection  (cf.  Hab.  iii.  19, 
Isa.  xxxviii.  20). 2  Had  Dr.  Driver  omitted  the 
reference  on  page  283  to  a  bold  conjecture  of  Prof 
Sayce,:]  he  would  have  gained  more  than  enough  space 
for  some  mention  of  this  important  critical  point. 
He  might  also  have  gracefully  referred  to  Air.  Sinker's 
Psalm  of  Habakkuk  (1890).  I  venture  to  add  that 
caution  is  carried  too  far  when  the  date  of  Nahum  is 


1  On  the  date  of  this  psalm,  cf.  my  Hampton  Lectures,  p.  1  27. 

2  So  Stade  and  Kuenen  ;  see  also  my  Bampton  Lectures,  pp. 
125  (top),  156,  157,  210,  214,  and  Isaiah,  i.  228-9. 

3  For  which,  besides  Dr.  Driver's  references,  see  Babylonian 
and  Oriental  Record,  ii.  18 — 22. 


310      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

placed  between  B.C.  664  and  607.  The  prophecy 
must,  it  would  seem,  have  been  written  either  circa 
B.C.  660  (as,  following  Schrader,  Tiele  and  myself 
dated  it  in  1888),  or  circa  623,  the  date  of  the  first 
campaign  of  Cyaxares  against  Assyria  (as  recently 
both  Kuenen  and  Cornill). 

The  other  Minor  Prophets  are  considerably  more 
difficult.  Obadiah,  for  instance,  well  deserves  a 
closer  investigation.  Dr.  Driver's  treatment  of  the 
book  is,  as  far  as  it  goes,  excellent.  On  Obadiah 
1 — 9  he  adopts  the  most  critical  view,  viz.  that 
Obadiah  here  takes  for  his  text  a  much  older 
prophecy,  which  is  also  reproduced  with  greater 
freedom  in  Jeremiah  xlix.  7 — 22.  But  he  makes  no 
attempt  to  fix  the  period  of  the  prophecy  more 
precisely.  I  will  not  presume  to  censure  him  for  this. 
But  if  the  book  was  to  carry  out  the  promises  of  the 
programme,  I  venture  to  think  that  the  two  views 
which  are  still  held  ought  to  have  been  mentioned, 
viz.  (1)  that  Obadiah  wrote  soon  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadrezzar  (Schrader,  Riehm, 
Meyrick) ;  and  (2)  that  his  date  is  some  time  after 
the  re-establishment  of  the  Jews  in  their  own  land 
(Kuenen,  Cornill).1  The  latter  view  seems  to  me  to 
be  required  by  a  strict  exegesis. 

There  is  also  another  omission  of  which  I  would 


1  Schwally's  view  should  also  perhaps  have  been,  however 
briefly,  referred  to.  See  his  study  on  Zephaniah,  in  Stade's 
Z7.,  x.  225,  note.  He  makes  vv.  1 — 18  Exilic,  vv.  19 — 21  post- 
Exilic. 


DRIVER.  311 

gently   complain.      Dr.    Driver   undertakes    to   give 

some  account  of   the  contents  of  the  several  books. 
But    here    he   omits    one  most    important  feature  of 
Obadiah's  description,  which  I  venture  to  give  from  a 
critical  paper  of  my  own  (printed  in   18S1)  which  has 
escaped  the  notice  of  Dr.  Driver. 

"  One  very  singular    feature  requires   explanation. 
The    captives    of  the  northern    kingdom  are  not    to 
settle    in    their   old    homes  ;    their    kinsmen    of    the 
southern    tribes    have  expanded    too  much    for    this. 
They  are  therefore  compensated  by  the  gift  of  that 
border-land,  which  had  never  as  yet  been  thoroughly 
conquered,  '  the   cities    of  the    Canaanites  as    far  as 
Zarephath  '    (this  is   the  most    probable  view  of   the 
first  half  of  v.  20) — they  became,  in  fact,  the  guardians 
of  the  northern  marches  just  as  the  captives  of  Judah 
are  the  keepers  of  the  southern.     Tyre  is  excepted, 
for  a  great  future  is  reserved  for  Tyre  (Isa.  xxiii.  17, 
18).     But    in  speaking  of  the  captives  of  Judah  we 
must   draw   a    distinction.      The    guardians    of    the 
'  south-country  '   (the   Ncgeb,  or   '  dry   land  ')   are,  not 
the  mass  of  the  captives  of  Israel,  but  those  '  who  are 
in  Sepharad.'  "  x 

Now,  what  is  "  Sepharad  "  ?  If  this  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  date  of  the  book,  Dr.  Driver  might 
simply  have  referred  to  a  dictionary  of  the  Bible. 
But  it  has  very  much  indeed  to  do  with  it,  and  Prof. 
Sayce    may  justly  complain  of  the    author   for   this 

1  "The  Book  of  Obadiah,"  HomiUtic  Quarterly,  Jan.  1SS1, 
pp.  114—117. 


312      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

neglect  of  archaeological  evidences.  I  am  aware  of 
the  diversity  of  opinion  which  exists  among  scholars 
as  to  the  locality  of  "  Sepharad  "  ;  the  evidence  and 
the  arguments  lie  before  me.  But  it  is  clear  that  if 
the  prophecy,  as  it  stands,  is  post-Exilic,  we  can 
hardly  help  identifying  "  Sepharad  "  with  Cparda,  the 
name  of  a  province  of  the  Persian  empire,  which 
stands  between  Cappadocia  and  Ionia  in  the  inscrip- 
tion of  Darius  at  Naksh-i-Rustam.1  What  now 
becomes  the  most  natural  view  of  the  date  of  the 
prophecy  ?  When  can  there  have  been  a  captive- 
band  from  Jerusalem  in  Phrygia  or  Lydia  ?  The 
earliest  possible  time  known  to  us  is  about  B.C.  351, 
when  Artaxerxes  Ochus  so  cruelly  punished  the 
participation  of  the  Jews  in  the  great  revolt.  I  have 
remarked  elsewhere  that  this  was  "  the  third  of  Israel's 
great  captivities,"  -  and  have  referred  various  psalms 
to  the  distress  and  embitterment  which  it  produced. 
It  is  very  noteworthy  that  the  prophet  nowhere 
mentions  either  the  Chaldeans  or  Babylon.  Also  that 
Joel  iii.  6  refers  to  "  children  of  Judah  and  of  Jeru- 
salem" as  having  been  sold  to  the  "sons  of  the 
Javanites"  (Ionia  was  close  to  Cparda  =  Sepharad). 
Now  Joel,  as  Dr.  Driver  and  I  agree,  is  post-Exilic, 

1  See  Records  of  the  Past,  v.  70  (where  however  "  Sparta  "  is 
an  incorrect  identification  of  "  Cparda  ").  On  "  Sepharad," 
Lassen,  Spiegel,  Oppert,  Sayce,  but  especially  Schrader,  have 
learnedly  discoursed.  See  the  latter's  The  Cuneiform  Inscrip- 
tions, &c.  (by  Whitehouse)  on  Obad.  20,  and  his  Keilschriften 
unci  GescJiiclitsforschwig,  pp.  116 — 119. 

2  Bampton  Lectures  for  1889,  p.  53  ;  cf.  p.  229. 


DRIVER.  313 

and  appears  to  refer  in  ii.  32  to  Obad.  17.  Is  all  this 
of  no  importance  to  the  student?  I  cannot  think  so, 
provided  that  the  critic  also  points  out  the  religious 
elements  which  give  vitality  to  this  little  prophecy. 

Here  let  me  remind  the  reader  that  I  am  no 
opponent  of  Professor  Driver.  Most  gladly  would  I 
have  given  him  unmingled  thanks  for  all  the  good 
that  is  in  his  book.  I  am  only  hindered  from  doing 
so  by  those  very  serious  misapprehensions  of  the 
public,  which  I  have  endeavoured  to  combat,  and  to 
which,  in  one  respect,  the  editors  of  the  "  Library  " 
have  unintentionally  contributed.  It  was  perhaps 
specially  difficult  for  Professor  Driver  to  explain  the 
prevailing  tendency  of  critical  opinion  on  the  Minor 
Prophets  because  of  the  attention  naturally  directed 
in  the  Anglican  Church  to  the  successor  of  Dr.  Pusey, 
a  scholar  who  not  only  worthily  summed  up  and 
closed  a  philological  period,  but  represented  a  school 
of  orthodoxy  which  is  still  powerful  among  us.  Dr. 
Driver  would  not,  I  believe,  say  that  he  has  as  yet 
given  us  all  that  he  hopes  to  know  about  Joel.  This 
little  book  is  one  of  those  which  suffer  most  by  a 
separate  treatment,  and  every  advance  which  we  make 
in  our  study  of  the  other  post-Exilic  writings  must 
react  (as  I  have  shown  in  one  case  already)  on  our 
view  of  Joel.  But  what  Dr.  Driver  does  give  us  is 
excellent ;  I  only  miss  the  definite  statement  which 
is  surely  a  necessary  inference  from  the  facts  pro- 
duced) that  the  Book  of  Joel  is  at  any  rate  hardly 
earlier  than  the  age  of  Nchemiah  (i.e.  the  second  half 


314     FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

of  the  fifth  century).1  It  might  also  have  been 
mentioned  that  the  early  Jewish  doctors  were  rather 
for  than  against  a  late  date  for  Joel.2 

I  now  come  to  a  book  which,  by  the  common 
consent  of  sympathetic  readers,  is  one  of  the  most 
beautiful  in  the  Old  Testament  Canon — the  Book  of 
Jonah.  It  is  also  however  one  of  the  most  contro- 
verted, and  one  cannot  but  admire  the  quiet  dignity 
with  which  Dr.  Driver  sets  forth  his  own  free  but 
devout  critical  views.  In  the  first  place,  as  to  the 
date.  By  four  (or  rather  five) 3  arguments  uncon- 
nected with  the  extraordinary  character  of  the  story, 
it  is  shown  that  the  book  finds  its  only  natural  home 
in  the  post-Exilic  period.  I  think  myself  that  we 
might  go  further,  and  that  from  a  fuller  study  of  the 
literature  and  history  of  the  post-Exilic  period,  and 
also  (if  I  may  say  so)  of  psalm-criticism,  Dr.  Driver 
may  obtain  a  still  more  definite  solution  of  the 
critical  problem.  But  the  main  point  has  been  settled 
beyond   dispute.     It    remains  however  to  determine 

1.  What    the    didactic  purpose  of  the   book  is,  and 

2.  Whether,  or  to  what  extent,  the  narrative  is 
historical.  On  the  latter  point  Dr.  Driver  says  that 
"  quite  irrespectively  of  the  miraculous  features  in  the 
narrative,  it  must  be  admitted  that  .  .  it  is  not  strictly 
historical,"  but  also  that — "No  doubt  the  materials 

1  So  Merx,  Kuenen,  Cornill,  and  Prof.  Robertson  Smith.  On 
the  linguistic  argument  see  further  on. 

2  See  Rosenzweig,  Das  Jahrhundert  nach  dem  bab.  Exile, 
p.  45-  3  See  Note  I,  p.  301. 


DRIVER. 

of  the  narrative  were  supplied  to  the  author  by 
tradition,  and  rest  ultimately  upon  a  basis  of  fact :  no 
doubt  the  outlines  of  the  narrative  arc  historical,  and 
Jonah's  preaching  was  actually  successful  at  Nineveh 
(Luke  xi.  30,  32),  though  not  upon  the  scale  repre- 
sented in  the  book  "  (p.  303). l 

May  I  be  allowed  gently  to  criticize  the  latter 
statement,  which  yields  too  much  to  stationary 
thinkers  like  Bishop  Ellicott  ?  The  author  speaks 
here  as  if,  whenever  the  Saviour  referred  in  appear- 
ance to  historical  individuals,  He  necessarily  believed 
Himself  that  the  persons  named  were  actually  his- 
torical. This  in  Sir  Philip  Sidney's  time  appears  to 
have  been  commonly  held  ;  for  in  mentioning  the 
story  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus-  he  apologetically 
refers  to  "the  learned  divines"  who  account  the 
narrative  to  be  a  parable.  But  what  necessity  is 
there  for  this  view  with  regard  to  Christ's  words  in 
Luke  xi.  30,  32  ?  Considering  how  temporary  and 
therefore  how  superficial  the  "repentance"  of  the 
Ninevites  (if  historical)  must  have  been,  and  how 
completely  different  was  the  repentance  which  Christ 
demanded,  it  becomes  surely  the  most  natural  view 
that  Jesus  Christ  interpreted  the  story  as  an  instructive 
parable.  We  cannot  indeed  prove  this;  and  even  if 
He  did,  with  His  wonderful  spiritual  t act,  so  interpret 
it,  we  cannot  be  sure  that  He  would  have  communi- 

1  So   Prof.    A.    B.    Davidson   calls  this   book   Ma   historical 
episode"  {Expositor,  v.  161). 

-   .  ///  Apolo^ic  for  Poctri:  (Arber).  p.  35. 


3l6     FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

cated  His  interpretation  to  His  dull  disciples,  on 
whom  probably  the  distinction  between  history  and 
quasi-historical  didactic  fiction  would  have  been  lost. 
I  venture  also  to  object  that  Dr.  Driver's  reference 
to  the  New  Testament  will  give  offence  to  many 
young  men  who,  without  being  in  the  least  undevout, 
desire  to  study  the  Old  Testament  historically.  He 
who  would  guide  this  best  class  of  students  must  not 
even  seem  to  be  biassed  by  a  disputable  theological 
theory  respecting  the  knowledge  of  the  Saviour.  To 
me  it  appears  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that 
the  story  of  the  Book  of  Jonah  is  not  merely  not  in 
all  points,  but  not  in  any  point,  historical,  and  I  have 
on  my  side  such  a  moderate  and  orthodox  critic  as 
Riehm.1  The  romantic  form  of  literature  which 
flourished  among  the  later  Jews  must  have  had  a 
beginning  ;  Tobit  cannot  have  been  its  first  specimen. 
It  also  appears  to  me  more  than  probable  that 
there  is  a  mythic  element  in  the  story  of  Jonah.  I 
do  not  mean  that  this  story  is  itself  a  popular  myth, 
but  that,  as  I  showed  in  1 877,2  tne  author  of  "Jonah" 
(like  the  writer  of  Jeremiah  li.  34,  44)  adopted  a  well- 
known  Oriental  mode  of  expression,  based  upon  a 
solar   myth.3     Bishop    Ellicott,  whom    I    meet   with 

1  Riehm,  Einleitung,  ii.  167  ("eine  reine  Dichtung"). 

2  See  Theological  Review,  1877,  pp.  211 — 219. 

3  The  late  Prof.  Elmslie  once  expressed  the  hope  that  Boehme's 
theory  of  the  combination  in  the  book  of  Jonah  of  divergent 
versions  might  be  established,  and  so  put  out  of  court  the 
notion  that  the  Book  is  a  pure  allegory  {Expositor^  vii.  399). 
It  is,  as  most  good  critics  agree,  a  narrative  in  the  style  of  the 


DRIVER.  317 

regret  as  an  opponent,  thinks  this  view  dishonouring 
to    the    Bible.     To  the  younger  generation  however 


midrash,  attached  to  the  name  of  the  prophet  mentioned  in  2 
Kings  xiv.  25.  Budde  indeed  has  ably  supported  the  conjecture 
that  it  is  a  fragment  of  the  midrash  of  the  Book  of  Kings, 
which  forms  the  chief  source  of  Chronicles  (Stade's  Zt.,  1892, 
p.  37,  &c).  My  own  contribution  consists  in  pointing  out  the 
mythic  element  in  the  story.  I  do  not  mean  that  the  story  is 
itself  directly  mythical.  As  H.  Zimmern  has  lately  said,  the 
school  which  professed  to  discover  in  every  form  of  early  legend 
the  reflection  of  a  natural  phenomenon  has  had  its  day  ;  Gold- 
ziher,  I  am  certain,  would  now  abandon  the  greater  part  of  his 
Hebrew  Mythology.  But  just  as  Zimmern  maintains  that  the 
poet  who  composed  the  Blessing  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xlix.)  utilized 
material  which  was  ultimately  of  mythic  origin,  so  I  hold  that 
the  form  of  the  story  of  Jonah  was  partly  suggested  by  a 
Babylonio-Israelitish  expression  of  mythic  origin.  That  the 
writer  of  the  Book  of  Jonah  knew  the  mythic  meaning  I  do  not 
assert.  Neither  is  it  at  all  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  Second 
Isaiah  and  the  author  of  Job  knew  the  meaning  of  the  mythic 
expressions  which  they  have  used. 

1  venture  to  refer  here  to  Jer.  li.  31,44,  which  possibly  furnished 
the  author  of ''Jonah  :;  with  the  basis  of  his  story,  and  "supplies 
a  missing  link  between  the  Jonah-story  and  the  original  myth." 
"  Like  the  latter,  it  describes  the  destroyer  as  '  the  dragon  '  ;  like 
the  former,  it  converts  both  destroyer  and  destroyed  into  symbols :' 
(article  "Jonah,"  Theological  Review,  1877,  p.  217).  Israel,  in 
short,  is  swallowed  up  by  Nebuchadrezzar  as  by  "a  dragon." 
For  the  Babylonian  myth  of  the  Serpent,  who  in  the  fight  with 
Marduk  devoured  the  tempest,  see  Transactions  of  Soc.  of 
Biblical  Arclucology,  vol.  iv.  part  2,  appendix,  plate  6  ;  and  for 
a  translation  of  part  of  it,  my  Pulpit-comm.  on  Jeremiah  (1885), 
ii.  293.  Comp.  also  Smith's  Chaldctan  Genesis,  ed.  Sayce,  pp. 
112 — 114,  and  my  fob  and  Solomon,  pp.  76,  77;  also  H.  C. 
Trumbull,  "Jonah  in  Nineveh,"  Journal  of  Biblical  Lit.,  vol. 
xi.  part  1,  where  the  story  of  Jonah  is  regarded  as  providentially 
arranged  so  as  to  seem  credible  to  believers  in  the  fish-god 
Oannes  (  =  Jonah,. 


3lS      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

who  have  felt  the  fascination  of  myths,  the  word 
which  has  dropped  from  the  Bishop's  pen  in  con- 
nection with  myself 1  will  appear  strangely  misplaced. 
They  will  be  well  pleased  at  the  discovery  that  the 
story  of  Jonah  (like  that  of  Esther)  contains  an 
element  of  mythic  symbol.  They  will  reverence  its 
writer  as  one  of  those  inspired  men  who  could 
convert  mythic  and  semi-mythic  stones  and  symbols 
into  vehicles  of  spiritual  truth.  Dr.  Driver,  it  is  true, 
is  not  on  my  side  here.  He  timidly  refers  to  the 
allegoric  theory,  without  himself  adopting  it,  and 
even  without  mentioning  how  I  have  completed  the 
theory  by  explaining  the  allegoric  machinery.  Still, 
what  Dr.  Driver  does  say  (p.  302)  as  to  the  aim  of 
the  Book  of  Jonah  is  in  itself  excellent,  and  may, 
without  violence,  be  attached  to  the  mythic-allegoric 
theory.  The  story  of  Jonah  did  in  fact  teach  the 
Jews  "  that  God's  purposes  of  grace  are  not  limited  to 
Israel  alone,  but  are  open  to  the  heathen  as  well,  if 
only  they  abandon  their  sinful  courses,  and  turn  to 
Him  in  true  penitence."  And  I  think  these  words 
may  be  illustrated  and  confirmed  by  a  passage  from 
my  own  discussion  of  the  relation  of  the  Jewish 
Church  to  heathen  races.  "  The  author  [of  Jonah] 
belongs  to  that  freer  and  more  catholic  school,  which 
protested  against  a  too  legalistic  spirit,  and  he  fully 
recognizes  (see  Jonah  iv.  2)  that  the  doctrine  of  Joel 
ii.  12  applies  not  merely  to  Israel,  but  to  all  nations. 

1   Christus  Comprobator,  p.  186. 


DRIVER.  319 

He  is  aware  too  that  Israel  typified  by  Jonah  'the 
dove')  cannot  evade  its  missionary  duty,  and  that 
its  preaching  should  be  alike  of  mercy  and  of 
justice."  l 

There  still  remain  Micah  and  Zcchariah.  Both 
books  are  treated  with  great  fulness,  and  with  results 
which  fairly  represent  the  present  state  of  opinion.  I 
would  gladly  quote  from  both  sections,  but  especially 
from  that  on  Micah.  On  Micah  iv.  10  the  author 
agrccs  with  me  that  the  words,  "and  thou  shalt  go 
even  to  Babylon,"  are  an  interpolation.  This  is  a 
brave  admission,  though  the  author  docs  not 
recognize  the  consequence  which  follows  from  this 
for  the  criticism  of  Isaiah  xxxix.  6,  7.-  On  Micah 
vi.,  vii.  (later  additions),  able  as  the  author's  criticisms 
are,  they  arc  lacking  in  firmness.  In  the  Zcchariah 
section,  the  great  result  is  attained,  that  not  only 
Zechariah  i. — viii.,  but  also  Zechariah  ix. — xi.,  and  xii. 
— xiv.,  come  to  us  from  post-Exilic  times.  Not  that 
Dr.  Driver,  like  another  able  philologist,  Professor  G. 
Hoffmann,3  goes  back  to  the  old  view  of  the  unity  of 
authorship — a  plurality  of  authors  is  evidently  implied 

1  Bampton  Lectures  for  1889,  pp.  294-5.  Why  is  Israel 
called  Jonah?  Because  Israel's  true  ideal  is  to  be  like,  not  the 
eagle,  but  the  dove.  See  my  note  on  l's.  Ixviii.  14  (end),  and 
comp.  a  beautiful  passage  in  Links  and  Chics,  p.  1 13. 

-  Nothing  in  Dilhnann's  note  00  Isaiah,  /.<".,  affects  the  main 
points  urged  in  my  own  commentary.  For  my  matured  opinion 
on  Micah  iv.  10,  and  a  vindication  of  itial   reverence, 

see  my  note  in  the  small  Cambridge  edition  of  Micah, 

'■'  Hiob  (1891),  p.  34,  note. 


320      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM, 

by  his  remarks ;  nor  yet  that  he  accepts  the  some- 
what radical  theory  of  Stade,  published  in  his 
Zeitschrift  in  1881-82.  He  holds  that  in  Zechariah 
ix. — xi.  we  have  a  post-Exilic  prophecy,  which  was 
modified  in  details,  and  accommodated  to  a  later 
situation  by  a  writer  who  lived  well  on  in  the  post- 
Exilic  period.  This  is  substantially  the  view  which  I 
have  already  put  forward,  and  to  which  Kuenen  has 
independently  given  his  high  authority.  Nor  ought 
I  to  pass  over  the  fact  that  though  Stade  has  done 
more  than  any  one  for  the  spread  of  a  similar  view, 
my  own  theory  was  expounded  at  length  by  myself 
in  1879,  in  a  paper  read  before  the  Taylerian  Society, 
and  briefly  summarized  in  the  same  year  in  print  in 
the  Theological  Review}  Dr.  Driver  is  so  kind  as  to 
refer  to  this  paper,  which  only  lately  reached  publi- 
cation. For  this  I  thank  him.  There  is  too  little 
recognition  of  work  done  by  Englishmen  in  darker 
days,  before  criticism  began  to  be  fashionable.  But 
the  greater  becomes  my  regret  at  Dr.  Driver's 
neglect  of  similar  work  of  mine,  which  also  stands 
chronologically  at  the  head  of  a  movement,  on  Isaiah 
xl.— lxvi.2 


1  See  Theological  Review,  1879,  p.  284  ;  Jewish  Quarterly 
Review,  1889,  pp.  76 — 83.  I  must  add  that  Professor  Robertson 
Smith  said  in  1881  that  he  had  long  held  Zechariah  xii. — xiv. 
to  be  post-Exilic,  and  that  Stade  had  convinced  him  that 
Zechariah  ix. — xii.  was  of  the  same  period  {The  Prophets  of  Israel, 
p.  412). 

•  I  ought  however  to  add  that  my  articles  receive  a  bare 
mention  in  the  addenda  to  Dr.  Driver's  second  edition. 


DRIVER.  321 

The  remaining  six  chapters  of  the  Introduction 
relate  to  the  Kethubim  or  Hagiographa.  May  they 
be  widely  read,  and  stir  up  some  students  to  give 
more  attention  to  these  precious  monuments  of  the 
inspired  Church-nation  of  Israel  !  Prefixed  are  some 
excellent  pages  on  Hebrew  poetry,  in  which  some 
will  miss  a  reference  to  Buddc's  important  researches 
on  the  elegiac  rhythm  (the  omission  is  repaired  on  p. 
429).  After  this,  we  arc  introduced  to  the  first  of  the 
Hagiographa,  according  to  our  Hebrew  Bibles — the 
Book  of  Psalms.  Surely  there  is  no  book  in  the 
Canon  on  which  an  Anglican  Churchman  and  a 
member  of  a  cathedral  chapter' may  more  reasonably 
be  expected  to  throw  some  light  than  the  Psalter. 
It  must  however  be  remembered  that  Dr.  Driver's 
space  is  limited.  lie  has  only  twenty-three  pages — 
all  too  few  to  expound  the  facts  and  theories  to 
which  the  Christian  apologist  has  by  degrees  to 
accommodate  himself.  Let  no  one  therefore  quarrel 
with  the  author,  if  on  the  religious  bearings  of  his 
criticism  he  withholds  the  help  which  some  students 
will  earnestly  desire  ;  and  let  it  be  also  remembered 
that  Dr.  Driver  is  one  of  a  band  of  scholars  who 
supplement  each  other's  work,  and  that  every  good 
special  work  on  the  Psalms  which  in  any  large  degree 
deviates  from  tradition  supplies  (or  should  supply) 
some  part  of  the  apologetic  considerations  which  are 
here  necessarily  omitted.  He  had  only  twenty-three 
pages !  But  how  full  these  pages  arc  of  accurate  and 
(under  the  circumstances)  lucidly  expounded   facts ! 


322      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Nor  is  this  all.  His  critical  argument,  though  as  a 
whole  far  less  cogent  than  it  might  have  been,  opens 
up  instructive  glimpses  of  the  actual  condition  of 
investigation.  How  difficult  his  task  was,  I  am 
perhaps  well  qualified  to  judge,  and  the  regret  which 
I  feel  at  some  undue  hesitation  in  his  criticism  is 
as  nothing  to  my  pleasure  at  the  large  recognition  of 
truth. 

For  there  is  in  fact  no  subject  on  which  it  is  so  easy 
to  go  wrong  as  in  the  criticism  of  the  Psalter.  It  is 
to  be  feared  that  English  scholars  in  general  do  not 
take  up  the  inquiry  at  the  point  to  which  it  has  been 
brought  by  previous  workers.1  Other  persons  may 
find,  in  facts  like  these,  nothing  to  regret.  I  confess 
that  I  do  myself  regret  them  very  much.  Criticism 
appears  to  me  a  historical  and  a  European  movement, 
and  I  am  sure  that  this  view  is  endorsed  by  the  editors 
of  this  "international  and  interconfessional  "  series. 
But  let  me  hasten  to  add  that  I  do  not  feel  this  regret 
in  reading  Dr.  Driver  on  the  Psalms.  He  does  not, 
indeed,  tell  us  much  about  his  method  of  research  ; 
the  plan  of  his  work  forbade  him  to  exhibit  his  results 
genetically.  But  on  pages  360 — 362  he  gives  hints  of 
great  value  to  students,  on  which  I  will  only  offer  this 
remark — that  with  all  his  love  for  the  Hebrew 
language   he  cannot   bring   himself   to  say  that  the 

1  I  am  thinking  of  Profs.  Kirkpatrick  and  Sanday,  and  many 
recent  reviewers.  In  contrast  to  these  stands  Prof.  Robertson 
Smith,  whose  article  "  Psalms  "  (Enc.  Brit.,  1886)  is  still  the  best 
general  introduction  to  the  subject.  [This  has  been  reproduced 
in  the  new  edition  of  OTJC  ;  see  above,  pp.  219 — 224.] 


DRIVER.  323 

linguistic  argument  is  a  primary  one  (to  this  point  I 
may  return  later).  One  thing  at  least  is  certain,  that 
the  author  is  not  in  that  stage  represented  provision- 
ally by  Professor  Kirkpatrick,  when  "internal  evidence, 
whether  of  thought,  or  style,  or  language,"  seems  to 
be  "a  precarious  guide,"  and  when  the  student  who 
has  become  sceptical  of  the  titles  of  the  Psalms  feels 
that  he  is  "  launched  upon  a  sea  of  uncertainty."  ■ 

Put  to  proceed  to  details.  One  of  the  most 
important  things  for  Dr.  Driver  to  bring  out  was  the 
composite  origin  of  the  Psalter.  At  the  very  outset 
we  arc  met  by  the  fact  that  in  the  Hebrew  Bible 
(comp.  the  Revised  English  Version)  the  Psalter 
is  divided  into  five  books.  Four  of  these  books  are 
closed  by  a  doxology,  which  Dr.  Driver  explains  by 
the  custom  of  Oriental  authors  and  transcribers  to 
close  their  work  with  a  pious  formula  (p.  345).  Hut 
how  strange  it  is,  on  this  theory,  that  the  Psalter  itself 
is  not  closed  by  such  a  formula,  but  only  certain 
divisions  of  the  Psalter!  If  the  doxoloeies  are 
expressions  of  personal  piety,  the  fact  that  Psalm  cl. 
is  a  liturgical  song  of  praise  constitutes  no  reason  for 
the  omission  of  a  closing  doxology.  And  when  we 
examine  the  doxologies  more  closely,  we  find  that 
they  all  have  a  pronounced  liturgical  character.-  This 
is  of  some  consequence  for  the  controversy  with 
traditionalistic  writers  on  the   Psalms.     Next  comes 

1   Kirkpatrick,  The  Psalms:  Booh  /.,  Introd.  p.  xxxi. 
-  See  Hampton  Lectures  for  1889,  p.  457.  and  cf  Abbott,  I'.ssays 
on  the  Original  Texts  (1891),  p.  222. 


324      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

the  great  fact  of  the  existence  of  internal  groups, 
marked  by  the  headings  ;  Dr.  Driver  sums  up  the 
best  that  has  been  said  in  a  small  space.  On  the 
titles  he  is  somewhat  tantalizing;  a  disproportionate 
amount  of  space  is  given  to  the  demolition  of  the 
historical  value  of  the  title  "  To  David  "  as  a  record  of 
authorship.  At  least,  my  own  feeling  is  that  the 
small-print  illustrations  on  pp.  353 — 355  could  have 
been  omitted,  and  that  the  author  should  have  trusted 
to  the  natural  impression  of  an  honest  reader  of  the 
Psalms.  At  any  rate,  no  one  who  has  followed  Dr. 
Driver  thus  far  can  doubt  that,  in  Prof.  Robertson 
Smith's  words,  "  not  only  are  many  of  the  titles 
certainly  wrong,  but  they  are  wrong  in  such  a  way 
as  to  prove  that  they  date  from  an  age  to  which 
David  was  merely  the  abstract  psalmist,  and  which 
had  no  idea  whatever  of  the  historical  conditions  of 
his  age." 

There  are  three  points  which  I  should  have  been 
specially  glad  to  see  mentioned.  First,  that  the 
Septuagint  differs  considerably  from  the  Hebrew  text 
in  its  psalm-titles.  A  careful  study  of  the  Greek 
titles  would  be  most  illuminative  to  the  ordinary 
student.  Secondly,  that  in  order  properly  to  criticize 
the  ascription  of  any  particular  psalm,  the  student 
must  first  of  all  obtain  a  historical  view  of  the  picture 
of  David  in  different  ages,  beginning  with  that 
disclosed  by  a  critical  study  of  the  Books  of  Samuel, 
and   ending  with  that  in  the   Books  of  Chronicles.1 

1  To   what    absurdities  an   uncompromising  defence  of  the 


driver.  325 

More  especially  he  must  to  some  extent  assimilate  a 
free  (but  not  therefore  undevout)  criticism  of  the  two 
former  books.  Dr.  Driver's  work  does  not  give  as 
much  help  as  could  be  wished  in  this  respect,  but  his 
results  on  the  "  Davidic  "  psalms  really  presuppose 
a  critical  insight  into  the  David-narratives.  And 
thirdly,  something  should,  I  think,  have  been  said 
about  the  titles  of  Psalms  vii.  and  xviii.; — of  the 
former,  because  conservative  scholars  maintain  that 
the  mention  of  the  otherwise  unknown  "  Cush"  proves 
the  great  antiquity  of  the  title,  or  at  any  rate  of  the 
tradition  embodied  therein,1  and  of  the  latter,  because 
of  its  unusual  fulness,  and  because  the  psalm  occurs 
again  in  a  somewhat  different  recension  with  almost 
exactly  the  same  title  near  the  end  of  the  second 
Book  of  Samuel,  which  latter  circumstance  has  been 
supposed  greatly  to  increase  the  probability  of  the 
accuracy  of  the  title.-  With  regard  to  the  former  title, 
it  ought  to  be  admitted  that  "  Cush  "  is  no  Hebrew 
proper  name  ;  there  must  be  a  corruption  in  the  text.3 

psalm-titles  can  lead,  will  be  seen  from  M.  de  Harlez's  article  on 
the  a.i,re  of  the  Psalms  {Dublin  Review)^  July  1891. 

1   So  Delitzsch,  followed  by  Prof.  Kirkpatrick. 

-  M.  de  Harlcz  thinks  that  "if  we  choose  to  look  upon  the 
testimony  of  2  Kings  (Sam.)  xxii.  as  false,  then  the  whole  Bible 
must  be  a  gigantic  falsehood,  and  there  is  no  use  troubling 
ourselves  about  it  "  {Dub/.  AY:\,  July  1S91,  p.  76). 

3  Cornill  (Bin/.,  p.  208,  proposes  to  read  M  Cushi  "  (following 
Sept.'s  Xovoii)  ;  but  the  episode  of  "  Cushi"  (sec  2  Sam.  xviii.) 
was  surely  most  unlikely  to  have  been  thought  of.  The 
corruption  must  lie  deeper.  "A  Benjamite"  certainly  looks  as 
if  intended  to  introduce  a  person  not  previously  known  (other- 


326      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

With  regard  to  the  latter,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted 
that  it  comes  from  some  lost  narrative  of  the  life  of 
David,  which  on  critical  grounds  can  hardly  be  placed 
earlier  than  the  reign  of  Josiah.1  (There  seems  to  be 
no  reason  for  thinking  that  the  editor  of  the  "  Davidic  " 
psalter  took  it  from  Samuel.) 

The  result  of  the  argument  against  the  universal 
accuracy  of  the  title  "To  David  "  is  thus  summed  up 
by  Dr.  Driver — "  Every  indication  converges  to  the 
same  conclusion,  viz.  that  the  '  Davidic '  psalms  spring, 
in  fact,  from  many  different  periods  of  Israelitish 
history,  from  the  period  of  David  himself  downwards  ; 
and  that  in  the  varied  moods  which  they  reflect  .  .  . 
they  set  before  us  the  experiences  of  many  men,  and 
of  many  ages  of  the  national  life  "  (p.  355). 

It  is  however  scarcely  possible  to  say  that  this 
inference  is  logical.  It  is,  of  course,  an  idea  which 
involuntarily  suggests  itself  at  the  point  which  Dr. 
Driver's  argument  has  reached,  but  it  is  not  a 
legitimate   "  conclusion "  from   the   data  which   have 


wise,  as  Delitzsch  remarks,  we  should  have  "the  Benjamite  "). 
But  such  a  person  would  be  sure  to  have  his  father's  or  some 
ancestor's  name  given.  The  Targum  substitutes  for  Cush, 
"  Saul,  the  son  of  Kish."  But  Saul  is  a  well-known  person,  and 
elsewhere  in  the  titles  has  no  appendage  to  his  name.  Shimei, 
who  reviled  David,  might  be  thought  of,  but  he  is  called  (2  Sam. 
xix.  16)  "Shimei,  son  of  Gera,  the  Benjamite."  The  conjecture 
adopted  in  Bampt.  Led.,  pp.  229 — 243  alone  remains.  "  Targum 
sheni  "  on  Esther  expressly  credits  David  with  a  prevision  of 
Mordecai  (cf.  Cassel,  Esther,  p.  299).  I  hesitate  between  this 
conjecture  and  the  preceding  one. 
1  Cf.  Bampton  Lect.,  p.  206  (foot). 


DKIVI  327 

as  yet  been  brought  forward,  and  to  dally  with  it 
disturbs  the  mind,  which  henceforth  has  to  cont 
with  a  conscious  or  unconscious  bias.  The  author 
however  still  strives  hard  to  reason  fairly.  "  The 
majority  of  the  '  Davidic'  psalms,"  he  says,  "are  thus 
certainly  not  David's  ;  is  it  possible  to  determine 
whether  any  arc  his?"  (p.  355.) 

He  then  examines  the  evidence  respecting  David's 
musical  and  poetical  talents.  Here  he  is  less  tender 
to  conservatism  than  I  should  have  expected.  lie 
gives  no  testimony  to  David's  composition  of  religiou 
poetry  earlier  than  the  Chronicler1  (about  300  B.C)  ;  it 
is  only  later  on,  in  connexion  with  criteria  of  David's 
poetical  style,  that  the  poems  in  2  Samuel  xxii.  (=  Ps. 
xviii.)  and  xxiii.  I — 7  are  referred  to.  lie  says,  too, 
that  even  if  David  did  compose  liturgical  poems,  this 
would  not  account  for  his  authorship  of  more  than  a 
very  few  of  the  "  Davidic  "  psalms,  most  of  the  psalms 
ascribed  to  David  not  being  adapted  (at  least  in  the 
first  instance)  for  public  worship.  This  remark-  se< 
not  very  cogent,  especially  when  limited  by  what 
is  said  afterwards  respecting  the  "representative 
character"  of  many  psalms.  What  we  really  want, 
is  something  that  Dr.  Driver  could  not,  consistently 
with  his  plan,  give  us  ;  viz.  a  statement  of  the  grounds 
on  which  psalms  similar  to  those  which  we  possess 
can   (or  cannot)    be  supposed   to   have  existed   prior 

1  At  first  I  wrongly  inferred  from  this  that  Dr.  Driver  regarded 
the  poems  in  2  Sam.  xxii.  and  xxiii  as  post-Exilic,  which  is  at 
least  a  plausible  view  (sec  Cornill,  A"////.,  p.  119). 


328      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

to  the  regenerating  activity  of  Isaiah  and  his  fellow- 
prophets  (if  indeed  they  can  historically  be  imagined 
at  all  in  the  pre-Exilic  period).1  Prof.  A.  B.  Davidson 
will,  I  presume,  endeavour  to  supply  the  omission  in 
his  eagerly  expected  Old  Testament  Theology. 

One  group  of  interesting  facts  is  relegated  by  the 
author   to   a    footnote   (pp.    356,    357).     Among   the 
Jews  who  returned  from  Babylon  in  B.C.  536,  the  con- 
temporary register  (Nell.  vii.  44=  Ezra  ii.  41)  includes 
148   (128)   "sons  of  Asaph,  singers"   (they   are  dis- 
tinguished from  "  the  Levites  ").     On  the  other  hand, 
there  is   no  allusion  whatever   to   a  special    class   of 
temple-singers  in  the  pre-Exilic  narratives.     It  seems 
to  follow  that  the   official  singers  cannot   have  been 
very  prominent  before  the  Exile.     I    should  like  to 
have  seen  this  more  developed  ;  the  footnote  will  be 
obscure  to  some  readers.     But  of  course  the  strength 
of  the  argument  for  the  late  date  of  the  Psalms  is 
wholly  apart  from  "  doubtful  disputations  "  respecting 
pre-Exilic  music  and  singing.     I  will  only  add  that 
Jeremiah  xxxiii.  1 1  ought  hardly  to  have  been  quoted 
as  an   evidence  for  the  early  existence  of  a  class  of 
singers    (for   those    who    blessed    Jehovah    were    not 
necessarily    temple-officers),    but    in    relation    to    the 
probable  contents  of  pre-Exilic  psalms. 

Dr.  Driver's  remarks  on  Ewald's  cesthetic  criteria  of 
really  Davidic    psalms   are  on   the  whole   very  just. 

1  That  there  are  no  psalms  of  Jeremiah  has  lately  been  shown 
afresh  by  W.  Campe  (1891).  Dr.  Driver's  judgment  (p.  360) 
might  be  more  decided. 


Dkivi  329 

But  how  strange  it  is  that  after  admitting  that  we 
have  no  tolerably  sure  standard  for  David's  poetry 
outside  the  Psalter  except  2  Sam.  i.  19 — 27  and  iii. 
55,  34,  he  should  close  the  paragraph  thus — "  On  the 
whole,  a  non  liquet  must  be  our  verdict  ;  it  is  possible 
that  Ewald's  list  of  Davidic  psalms  is  too  large,  but  it 
is  not  clear  that  none  of  the  psalms  contained  in  it 
are  of  David's  composition." 

^Surely  here  Dr.  Driver  is  not  untouched  by  the 
spirit  of  compromise/^  The  reader  will,  I  hope,  not 
misunderstand  me.  I  mean  that  in  his  desire  to  help 
those  whose  spiritual  faith  is  (unfortunately)  bound 
up  with  an  intellectual  belief  in  Davidic  psalms  he 
sometimes  sympathizes  with  them  more  than  is  good 
for  his  critical  judgment,  and  I  wish,  not  that  his 
desire  to  help  were  diminished,  but  that  he  could 
adopt  a  "more  excellent  way"  of  helping.  Dr. 
Sanday  works,  I  imagine,  in  the  same  spirit,  and 
consequently  "  rests  for  the  moment  in  temporal'}' 
hypotheses  and  half-way  positions,  prepared  to  go 
either  forwards  or  backwards  as  the  case  may  be," 
and  disposed  to  idealize  Dr.  Driver's  hesitations  and 
inconsistencies  as  "the  combined  openmindedncss 
and  caution  which  are  characteristic  of  a  scholar."  l     I 

1  The  Oracles  of  God,  pp.   141,    143.     Prof.    Sanday  explains 
himself  very  fully  in  his  little  book,  Two  Present  Day  Questions 

(1S92),  pp.  25 — 35.     To  much  that  he  say.-'  1  can  apply  Goethe's 

words — 

Ungcfahr  sagt  das  dcr  Pfarrcr  audi, 
Nur  mit  cin  bischen  andcrn  YVortcn. 

The  archaeological  stage  of  the  higher  criticism  began  nearly 


330      FOUNDERS  OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

respect  Dr.  Sanday  very  highly,  but  I  have  an 
uncomfortable  suspicion  that  his  language  helps  to 
foster  the  "  undesirable  illusions  "  to  which  I  referred 
in  chap.  xi.  I  hope  that  it  may  not  be  thought  un- 
reasonable if  I  decline  either  to  "  go  backwards  "  or  to 
adopt  a  "  half-way  position  "  until  it  has  been  shown 
that  the  hypothesis  of  Davidic  elements  in  the  Psalter 
has  any  practical  value.  Unless  Books  I.  and  II. 
date  from  the  age  before  Amos,  any  Davidic  elements 
which  they  contain  must  have  been  so  modified  as  to 

thirty  years  ago,  and  there  is,  as  I  have  said  elsewhere,  a  vast 
amount  of  work  to  be  done  with  the  help  of  archaeology.  Mr. 
Joseph  Jacobs  however  has  suggested  to  Dr.  Sanday  that  the 
Old  Testament  critics  are  sadly  at  fault  for  want  of  archaeology 
and  "  institutional  sociology."  I  have  read  the  article  to  which 
Dr.  Sanday  refers  and  two  other  very  interesting  ones  on 
"junior  right"  in  the  Book  of  Genesis.  I  welcome  Mr.  Jacobs' 
help,  but  I  confess  that  he  is  a  little  too  confident  both  in  his 
criticisms  of  great,  scholars,  and  in  his  own  theories.  Mr. 
Fenton,  to  whom  Mr.  Jacobs  refers,  and  whom  I  have 
mentioned  myself  in  chap,  xi.,  erred  (as  Mr.  Jacobs  would,  I 
fear,  be  likely  to  err)  from  insufficient  recognition  of  critical 
results.  Literary  criticism  has  been  carried  on  so  long,  and  by 
such  eminent  persons,  that  we  cannot  disregard  its  results 
without  becoming  ourselves  unhistorical  and  insular.  It  is  a 
singular  alliance — that  of  Prof.  Sanday  and  Mr.  Jacobs.  Both 
utter  judgments  of  much  interest,  though  amateur-judgments, 
which  are  liable  to  be  unfair  or  inaccurate.  Prof.  Sanday, 
however,  from  the  fact  that  he  is  a  professed  New  Testament 
critic,  may  do  more  harm  to  the  cause  of  international  Biblical 
criticism  than  Mr.  Jacobs.  I  must  ask  in  conclusion,  Is  it 
really  true  that  "  the  state  of  New  Testament  study  "  in  England 
is  "almost  wholly  hopeful"?  There  is  no  doubt  much  good 
work  being  done,  but  for  want  of  a  disposition  to  learn  from  the 
"higher  critics"  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  appears  to  me  to  be, 
however  fruitful  up  to  a  certain  extent,  singularly  onesided. 


DRIVER.  331 

be  practically  unrecognizable.  To  analyze  the  Psalms 
with  the  view  of  detecting  Davidic  passages  would  be 
the  most  hopeless  of  undertakings.     David  may  have 

indited  religious  songs  ;  but  how  far  removed  was 
David's  religion  from  that  of  the  Psalms!  The  Song 
of  Deborah  is  perhaps  not  above  the  highest  thoughts 
of  David  ;  but  can  it  be  said  that  the  tone  of  this  poem 
approaches  the  spirituality  of  the  Psalms  ?  I  think 
therefore  that  Dr.  Driver's  verdict  is  premature.  It 
would  have  been  safer  from  his  point  of  view  to  say, 
"  It  is  not  clear  that  some  of  the  psalms  may  not  be 
pre-Exilic,  and  that  even  post-Exilic  psalms  may  not 
contain  unrecognizable  Davidic" fragments." 

But  why  all  this  eagerness  to  rescue  a  small 
Davidic  Psalter  within  the  undoubtedly  much  larger 
non-Davidic  one  ?  Was  it  David  who  founded  the 
higher  religion  of  Israel  ?  Surely,  as  Professor 
Robertson  Smith  in  his  article  on  the  Psalms  has 
remarked,  "  whether  any  of  the  older  poems  really  are 
David's  is  a  question  more  curious  than  important." 
For  the  question  of  questions  is,  To  what  period  or 
periods  docs  the  collection  of  the  Psalters  within  the 
Psalter  belong?  For  what  period  in  the  religious 
history  of  Israel  may  we  use  the  Psalter  as  an 
authority?  This  was  what  I  had  chiefly  in  view 
when  I  prefixed  an  inquiry  into  the  origin  of  the 
Psalter  to  a  sketch  of  the  theology  of  the  psalmist.  I 
cannot  find  that  any  help  is  given  to  the  student  of 
this  subject  in  the  Introduction,  an  1  this  is  one  of  the 
points  in  which  this  valuable  chapter  ap;  cars  to  me 


332      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

to  fail.  Nor  can  I  express  myself  as  satisfied  with 
Dr.  Driver's  remarks  on  the  means  which  we  have  of 
approximately  fixing  the  periods  of  the  Psalms.  I 
can  divine  from  it  that  there  is  much  which  enters 
into  a  full  discussion  of  this  subject  upon  which  Dr. 
Driver  and  I  would  at  present  differ.  Nor  can  I 
content  myself  either  with  the  author's  neutrality  on 
Psalm  cxviii.,  or  with  his  vague  remarks  on  Psalm  ex., 
that  "  though  it  may  be  ancient,  it  can  hardly  have 
been  composed  by  David,"1  and  that  "the  cogency 
of  [Christ's]  argument  (in  Mark  xii.  35 — 37)  is  un- 
impaired, as  long  as  it  is  recognized  that  the  psalm  is 
a  Messianic  one,"  or  with  the  remark  (p.  367)  on  the 

1  These  words  are  from  the  footnote  on  pp.  362,  363.  In  the 
text  it  is  said  that  Psalm  ex.  "may  be  presumed  to  be  pre- 
Exilic."  I  cannot  but  regret  the  misplaced  moderation  of  the 
words  "  can  hardly  have  been  composed  by  David,"  and  the 
deference  to  a  tradition  admitted  to  be  weak  in  the  extreme 
which  expresses  itself  in  the  "  presumption "  that  the  psalm 
is  pre-Exilic.  I  can  enter  into  the  reasoning  so  skilfully  indicated 
in  the  reference  to  Jer.  xxx.  21,  but  what  this  naturally  leads  up 
to  is — not  that  the  psalm  refers  to  an  actual  pre-Exilic  king,  but 
that  it  is  a  thoroughly  idealistic  lyric  prophecy  of  the  early  post- 
Exilic  period,  when  both  psalmists  and  prophets  devoted  them- 
selves largely  to  the  development  of  earlier  prophetic  ideas. 
The  author  follows  Riehm  in  the  stress  which  he  lays  on  Jer. 
xxx.  21,  but  significantly  omits  Riehm's  second  reference 
{Messianic  Propliecy,  pp.  121,  284)  to  Zech.  iii.  vi.  I  must  also 
express  my  regret  at  his  useless  attempt  to  soften  opposition 
by  a  necessarily  vague  description  of  the  contents  of  the  psalm. 
The  whole  footnote,  in  its  present  form,  seems  to  me  out  of 
place  ;  it  fosters  unfortunate  illusions.  One  result  is  that  Dr. 
Driver  is  praised  for  his  weak  as  well  as  for  his  strong  points 
and  another  that  many  theologians  will  not  give  a  patient 
hearing  to  a  scholar  who  cannot  adopt  Dr.  Driver's  manner. 


DRIVER.  333 

accommodation  of  individualistic  psalms  to  liturgical 

use  by  slight  changes  in  the  phraseology.1 

On  the  other  hand  I  am  much  gratified  to  find  that 
Dr.  Driver  accepts  the  theory  that  Psalm  li.  is  "  a 
confession  written  on  behalf  of  the  nation  by  one  who 
had  a  deep  sense  of  his  people's  sin."  That  he  adds 
"during  the  Exile"  is  comparatively  unimportant; 
on  the  main  point  he  accepts  my  own  view  already 
expressed  in  TJic  Book  of  Psalms  (1888).  His 
arguments  are  identical  with  those  which  I  have 
myself  repeatedly  urged.2  The  only  objection  which 
I  have  to  make  relates  to  his  treatment  of  verse  5, 
but  as  I  have  put  it  forward  already  in  the  Expositor, 
1892  (2),  p.  398,  I  will  here  only  express  the  con- 
viction that  the  Church-nation  theory  can,  without 
violence,  be  applied  throughout  the  psalm.  I  know 
how  much  untrained  English  common  sense  has  to 
say  against  it,  but  I  think  it  quite  possible  by  a  few 
historical  and  exegetical  hints  to  make  common  sense 
agree  entirely  with  the  experts.  We  must  however 
make  it  perfectly  clear  that  the  person  who  speaks 
in  the  51st  and  other  psalms  is  not  a  mere  rhetorical 
collective  expression  for  a  number  of  individuals 
but  that  complete  living  organism  of  which  Isaiah 
said,  "  The  whole  head  is  sick,  and  the  whole  heart 
faint."  3 

1  Similarly  Stckhovcn,  on  whom  sec  Ramp  ton  Lcct.,  p.  277. 
-  Most  recently  in  sermon-studies  on  Ps.  li.,  in  Aids  to  the 
Devout  Study  of  Criticism. 

:)  See  Rampton  La't.,  pp.  261 — 265,  276 — 278. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

DRIVER    (3). 

I  SAID  in  chap.  xii.  that  Dr.  Driver  would  have  done 
well  to  make  his  non  liquet  refer,  not  to  Davidic,  but 
to  pre-Exilic  psalms.  There  are  in  fact,  as  it  appears 
to  me,  two  tenable  (though  not  two  equally  tenable) 
views.  According  to  one,  we  may  still  have  some 
pre-Exilic  psalms  (including  those  which  refer  to  a 
king,  and  some  at  least  of  the  persecution-psalms), 
a  few  Exilic  {e.g.  Pss.  xxii.,  li.,  cii.),  and  also  a  con- 
siderable number  of  post-Exilic  Psalms  (including  a 
few  Maccaboean  psalms,  and  at  any  rate  Pss.  xliv., 
lxxiv.,  lxxix.).1  This  was  the  view  which  I  adopted 
not  as  critical  truth  but  as  a  working  hypothesis,  when 
preparing   that    commentary   on    the    Psalms   (1888) 

1  Some  of  those  who  have  reviewed  my  Bampton  Lectures 
have  accused  me  of  having  treated  the  external  evidence  which 
has  been  thought  to  be  adverse  to  the  theory  of  Maccabasan 
psalms  and  the  objections  drawn  from  the  Septuagint  Psalter 
too  slightly.  The  view  which  these  scholars  take  of  the  present 
position  of  Psalm  criticism  is  however  entirely  different  from 
my  own  and  from  that  taken  by  competent  scholars  abroad  (see 
Miihlmann,  Znr  Frageder  viakk.  P  sat  men,  1891,  p.  3).  Nor,  so 
far  as  I  can  judge,  is  it  that  of  Prof.  Driver. 


DRIVER.  335 

which  has  been  so  strangely  overlooked  by  nearly 
all  the  reviewers  of  my  Bampton  Lectures.  It  is  the 
very  view  now  independently  adopted  by  Ur.  Driver, 

which  indicates  that  in  his  more  special  Study  of  the 
Psalms  he  has  now  reached  the  point  which  I  had 
reached  in  1888.  At  this  I  rejoice,  for  I  am  confident 
that  the  view  which  was  only  a  working  hypothesis 
to  me  in  18S8  is  no  more  than  this  to  Dr.  Driver  in 
1891.  He  cannot  go  backward — this  were  to  .lens- 
facts  ;  he  can  only  go  on  to  the  second  of  the  two 
views  mentioned,  viz.  that  the  whole  of  the  Psalter,  in 
its  present  form,  with  the  possible  exception  of  Ps. 
xviii.,  is  post-Exilic.  Just  as  Cornill  thought  in  1881 
that  the  24th  and  probably  other  psalms  were  Davidic, 
and  that  Psalms  lxxxiv.,  lxxxv.,  xlii.,  xliii.,  were  of 
the  reign  of  Jchoiakim,  but  by  1S91  had  come  to  see 
that  the  whole  Psalter  (except  perhaps  Psalm  lxxxix.) 
was  post-Exilic,1  so  it  will  probably  be  with  Dr. 
Driver,  however  much  he  may  modify  his  view  by 
qualifications.2     It    is    the    latter  theory  of  which    I 

1  Cf.  his  essay  in  Luthardt's  Zcitschrift,  1881,  pp.  337 — 34 - 
with  §  36  of  his  EirUeitung  (1S91). 

-  I  do  not  think  that  he  will  find  that  much  is  gained  by  in- 
sisting on  an  ancient  basis  which  has  been  obscured  by  edil 
If  it  helps  any  one  to  believe  in  such  a  basis,  by  all  means  lei 
him  do  so  ;  it  is  more  harmless  than  in  the  case  of  the  Book  «'t 
Daniel.  But  the  chief  object  of  the  criticism  of  the  Psalms  is  to 
determine  the  date  when  they  became  known  in  substantially 
their  present  form.  It  appears  to  me  that  in  all  probability  the 
editors  mainly  concerned  themselves  with  the  omission  <>! 
passages  which  had  too  temporary  a  reference.  In  two  ^pre- 
sumably)  Maccabiean  psalms— lxxiv.   and  ex. —there  certainly 


336      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

have  myself  for  the  first  time  offered  a  comprehensive 
justification.  Caution  and  sobriety  were  as  much 
needed  for  this  as  for  any  other  critical  task,  nor 
would  the  want  of  ability  to  enter  into  the  feelings 
of  a  psalmist  (iiachempfindeii)  and  to  realize  his  his- 
torical situation  have  been  at  all  a  helpful  qualifica- 
tion. The  result  is  doubtless  capable  of  large  improve- 
ment in  detail,  but  in  the  fundamental  points  can 
hardly  be  modified.1 

Does  this  latter  theory  differ  essentially,  or  only  in 
secondary  points,  from  that  of  Dr.  Driver  ?  Only  in 
secondary  points.  I  made  no  leap  in  the  dark  when 
I  prepared  my  Lectures,  nor  will  Dr.  Driver  be  con- 
scious of  any  abrupt  transition,  when  he  finds  oppor- 

seem  to  be  some  omissions  ;  in  Psalm  lxxiv.  there  may  also  be  a 
fresh  insertion  {vv.  12 — 17). 

1  It  is  difficult  to  reply  as  one  would  wish  to  a  series  of 
criticisms  made  from  a  different  and  perhaps  a  narrower  point 
of  view,  especially  when  such  criticisms  deal  largely  with  sub- 
ordinate points  which  are  not  essential  to  the  main  theory. 
When  the  next  English  dissertation  on  the  origin  of  the  Psalter 
appears,  it  will  at  any  rate  be  compelled  to  make  considerable 
use  of  hypothesis,  or  it  will  be  a  failure.  Prof.  Davison  (in  the 
Thinker,  Feb.  1892)  does  not  seem  to  recognize  this.  To  him 
and  to  Prof.  Kennedy  (two  of  the  most  courteous  of  my  critics) 
I  have  given  an  imperfect  reply  in  the  Thinker  for  April ;  to 
Prof.  Kennedy  also  in  the  Expository  Times  for  the  same  month. 
I  am  most  thankful  for  any  assistance  in  the  work  of  self- 
criticism,  though  English  critics,  through  their  unprogressive- 
ness,  make  it  rather  difficult  for  me  to  learn  from  them.  Among 
the  criticisms  to  which  I  have  been  forced  to  reply  are  those  of 
Mr.  Gladstone  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  Oct.  1891  (answered, 
Dec.  1 891),  and  Mr.  J.  H.  Moulton,  in  the  Thinker,  May  and 
July  1892  (answered,  Aug.  1892).  In  the  interests  of  progress 
some  reference  to  these  answers  seems  desirable. 


I)Rivi:r.  337 

(unity  to  advance  further.  The  essential  of  both 
views  is  the  recognition  of  the  impossibility  of  proving 
that  any  psalm  in  its  present  form  is  pre-Exilic.  "  (  H 
many  psalms,"  adds  Dr.  Driver,  "the  Exilic  or  post- 
Exilic  date  is  manifest,  and  is  not  disputed  ;  of  others 
it  is  difficult  to  say  whether  they  are  pre-  or  post- 
Exilic"  (p.  362).  Whichever  view  be  adopted,  it 
must  be  allowed  that  even  Books  I.  and  II.  were  put 
forth  after  the  Return.  This  is  not  expressly  men- 
tioned by  Dr.  Driver,  and,  as  I  have  said,  it  seems  to 
me  a  regrettable  omission.  But  though  not  mentioned, 
it  is  not,  nor  can  it  be,  denied.  I  venture  to  put  this 
before  those  theological  reviewers  who,  in  their  need- 
less anxiety  for  the  ark  of  God,  have  hurried  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  author  has  "  rejected  Dr.  Cheyne's 
sweeping  criticism  of  the  Psalms,"  and  that  the  "  net 
result "  set  forth  by  the  author  on  pp.  362,  363  is 
"  very  different  from  that  which  Dr.  Chcyne  has  given 
us,"  1  and  to  express  the  hope  that  they  may  perceive 
the  error  into  which  they  have  fallen,  and  begin  to 
suspect  that  it  is  not  the  only  one. 

We  are  now  come  to  Proverbs  and  Job,  and  no- 
where perhaps  does  one  feel  more  strongly  the 
imperfection  of  Dr.  Driver's  plan.  It  is  true,  what 
was  most  desirable  was  not  yet  feasible — a  thorough 
and  comprehensive  stud)-  of  the  contents  and  origin  of 
the  Wisdom-literature,  which  would  furnish  results  at 
once  surer  and  more  definite  than  the  old-fashioned 

1  Sec  Church  Quarterly Reviewy  Jan.  1S92,  p.  343  ;  Guardian 
Dec.  2,  1891,  p.  1953. 

z 


338      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

Introductions  can  give.  But  I  think  that  more  might 
have  been  done  than  has  been  done  to  show  the 
threads  which  connect  the  products  of  this  style  of 
writing,  and  to  anticipate  the  results  which  a  critic  of 
insight  and  courage  could  not  fail  to  reach.  But  alas! 
Dr.  Driver  has  not  thrown  off  that  spirit  of  deference 
to  conservatism  which,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  injures 
his  work  elsewhere.  At  the  very  outset  the  tradition 
respecting  Solomon  in  I  Kings  iv.  29 — 34  receives 
no  critical  examination,  and  though  the  headings  in 
Proverbs  x.  1,  xxv.  I l  are  not  unconditionally  accepted, 
Dr.  Driver  speaks  notwithstanding  as  if  some  of  the 
Proverbs  in  two  of  the  greater  collections  might 
possibly  be  the  work  of  Solomon.  This  is  hardly 
the  way  to  cultivate  the  critical  spirit  in  young 
students,  and  (against  the  author's  will)  may  foster 
an  unjust  prejudice  against  critics  not  less  careful, 
but  perhaps  less  compromising  than  the  author.  As 
to  the  conclusions  here  offered,  I  feel  that  while 
censure  would  be  impertinent,  praise  would  be  mis- 
leading. The  "  present  condition  of  investigation  "  is 
only  indicated  in  a  few  lines  of  a  footnote  (p.  381), 
and  the  "  way  for  future  progress  "  is  not  even  allu- 
sively mentioned.  It  appears  to  me  that  criticism 
ought  to  start  not  from  the  worthless  tradition  of 
Solomonic  authorship,  but  from  the  fact  that  the 
other  proverbial  books  in  the  Old  Testament  are  with 
increasing  certainty  seen  to   be  later   than   538  B.C. 

1  Note  that  Sept.  does  not  give  the  former  heading  at  all,  and 
has  no  "  also  "  in  the  latter. 


DRIVER.  339 

Now    what    docs    Ben    Sira    tell    us    about    his    own 
work  ? 

"  I,  too,  as  the  last,  bestowed  zeal, 
And  as  one  who  gk-aneth  after  the  vintage  ; 
By  the  blessing  of  the  Lord  I  was  the  foremost, 
And  as  a  grape-gatherer  did  I  till  my  winepress." 

(Kcclus.  xxxiii.  16.) 

Who  were  Ben   Sira's  predecessors,  and  when  did 

they  live  ?     The  writers  of  Proverbs  xxx.  and  xxxi. 

1 — 9  and  10 — 31,  and  of  the  gnomic  sayings  (or  some 

of  them)  in  Koheleth  may  be  among  them;  but  surely 

there  were   more  productive  writers   or  editors  than 

these  (so  far  as  we  know  them   from  their  writings). 

The  force  of  the  arguments  against  a  pre- Exilic  date 

for  the  final  arrangement  of  our  composite  Book  of 

Proverbs   seems  to   me   to   be   constantly  increasing, 

and  were   I   to  resume  the  work  laid  aside  in    1887, 

I    feel   that  my  results  would  be  nearer  to  those  of 

Reuss  and  Stade  (adopted  by  Mr.  Montcfiore)  than 

to  those  of  Delitzsch.1     I  am  not  indeed  prepared  to 

give  up  a  large  antique  basis  2  for  chaps,  xxv. — xxvii., 

1  In  my  article  "  Isaiah"  (Ency.  Brit.,  1889)  I  expressed  the 
view  that  the  k>  Praise  of  Wisdom"  is  either  Exilic  or  post- 
Exilic;  in  my  Job  and  Solomon  (1887)  1  dated  it  earlier.  But, 
as  B amp  ton  Lcct.,  p.  365,  shows,  I  have  been  coming  back  to  my 
former  view  of  Prow  i.  ix.,  and  taking  a  survey  of  Proverbs 
from  this  fixed  point,  I  sec  that  the  difficulties  of  Rcuss's  and 
Stadc's  view  (when  duly  qualified)  are  less  than  those  of  my  own 
former  and  of  Dr.  Driver's  present  theory.  Comp.  Mr.  Montc- 
fiore's  thorough  and  interesting  article  on  Proverbs,  Jewish 
Quarterly  Review^  1S90,  pp.  430   -453. 

*  The  heading  in  xxv.  1  reminds  one  of  Assyrian  library  notes. 
Isa.  xxxviii.  9  may  rest  on  a  tradition  of  Ile/ckiah's  interest  in 
books. 


340      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

the  proverbs  in  which,  as  Prof.  Davidson  has  pointed 
out,  differ  on  the  whole  considerably  in  style  from 
those  in  x.  I — xxii.  16.  But  not  only  chaps,  xxx. 
and  xxxi.,  but  the  passages  forming  the  "  Praise  of 
Wisdom,"  and  the  introductory  verses  of  the  redactor 
(i.  i — 6),  are  altogether  post-Exilic  (not  of  course 
contemporary),  and  so  too,  probably,  is  much  of  the 
rest  of  the  book.  Indeed  however  much  allowance  is 
made  for  the  tenacity  of  the  life  of  proverbs,  and  for 
the  tendency  to  recast  old  gnomic  material,  one  must 
maintain  that  in  its  present  form  the  Book  of  Proverbs 
is  a  source  of  information,  not  for  the  pre-Exilic,  but 
for  various  parts  of  the  post- Exilic  period.1  I  will 
only  add  that  Dr.  Driver  may  perhaps  modify  his 
view  of  the  gradual  formation  of  Proverbs  in  deference 
to  recent  researches  of  Gustav  Bickell.2 

The  chapter  on  Job  is  a  skilful  exhibition  of  views 
which  are  well  deserving  of  careful  study.  It  is 
evidently  much  influenced  by  a  book  of  which  I  too 
have  the  highest  appreciation  —  Prof.  Davidson's 
volume  on  Job  in  the  Cambridge  series  (comp.  his 
article  ''Job"  in  the  Encycl.  Brit).  If  therefore  I 
object  to  it,  it  can  only  be  in  the  most  friendly 
manner,  and  on  the  same  grounds  on  which  I  have 
already   criticized  that  beautiful  textbook.3     I  must 

1  In  this  connexion  I  may  refer  to  my  notes  on  the  Persian 
affinities  of  the  "Wisdom"  of  Prov.  viii.,  Expositor,  Jan.  1892, 

p.  79- 

2  See  the   Wiener  Zeitschr.  f.  d.  Ktuide  des  Morgenlandcs, 

1891-92  (chiefly  important  for  the  metrical  study  of  Job,  Proverbs, 
and  Ecclesiasticus).  3  Academy,  Nov.  1,  1884. 


DRIVER.  341 

however  add  that  I  think  Dr.  Driver  should  have 
taken  some  steps  in  advance  of  a  book  published  in 
1884.  Until  he  and  Dr.  Davidson  have  a  way  of 
stopping  short  in  the  most  provoking  manner.  At 
the  very  outset,  for  instance,  they  compromise  rather 
more  than  is  strictly  critical  on  the  subject  of  the 
historical  existence  of  Job.1  It  is  true,  we  ought  not, 
without  strong  grounds,  to  presume  that  the  plot  of 
the  poem  is  purely  romantic,  Semitic  writers  pre- 
ferring to  build  on  tradition  as  far  as  they  can.  But 
to  use  the  words  "history"  and  "historical  tradition" 
of  the  main  features  of  the  Job  story  is  misleading, 
unless  we  are  also  bold  enough  to  apply  these  terms 
to  the  pathetic  Indian  story  of  H arisen andra  in  vol.  i. 
of  Muir's  Sanskrit  Texts.  No  doubt  there  were  cur- 
rent stories,  native  or  borrowed,  of  the  sudden  ruin 
of  a  righteous  man's  fortunes  ;  but  if  we  had  them, 
we  should  see  that  they  were  not  historical,  but 
simple  folk-tales,  which,  to  a  student  of  natural 
psychologies,  are  surely  better  than  what  we  cad 
history.  On  this  however  I  have  said  enough  else- 
where ;  -  so  I  will  pass  on  to  one  of  the  great  critical 
questions — that  of  the  integrity  of  the  b  >ok. 

Here    Dr.    Driver    is    not  very  satisfactory.     It   is 

1  Among  minor  matters  connected  with  the  Prologue,  these 
may  be  noted.  I  sec  no  explanation  of  the  name  of  Job,  and 
for  the  meaning  of  the  "  land  of  I  /.  mis  \  .1  referent  e  to  W.  K. 
Smith,  Kinship  in  Arabia,  p.  261.  A  hint  might  also  have  been 
given  of  the  appearance  of  a  legend  ^\  "  three  kings"  from  the 
East  (Job  ii.  11,  Sept.). 

-  Job  and  Solomon,  pp.  62, 


342      FOUNDERS    OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

true,  he  thinks  it  "all  but  certain"  (why  this  hesi- 
tation ?)  that  the  Elihu-speeches  are  a  later  insertion, 
which,  considering  his  conservatism  on  Isaiah  xl.— lxvi., 
is  a  concession  of  much  value.  But  he  unfortunately 
ignores  even  the  mildest  of  those  critical  theories,  of 
which  a  wiser  critic  (in  my  opinion)  speaks  thus  in  an 
American  review1 — "If  we  are  not  mistaken,  a 
much  better  case  could  be  made  out  for  a  theory  of 
many  authors  than  for  the  theory  of  one  [or  of  two]. 
As  the  name  of  David  attracted  successive  collections 
of  psalms,  and  the  name  of  Solomon  successive 
collections  of  proverbs,  why  may  not  the  name  of  Job 
have  attracted  various  treatments  of  the  problems  of 
suffering  righteousness  ? " 

Why  not,  indeed,  if  the  evidence  points,  as  it  does, 
in  this  direction  ?  And  my  complaint  is  not  that  Dr. 
Driver  does  not  adopt  this  or  that  particular  theory, 
but  that  he  fails  to  recognize  a  number  of  exegetical 
facts.  He  approaches  the  Book  of  Job,  as  it  seems 
to  me,  with  the  preconceived  idea  that  it  left  the 
author's  hand  as  a  finished  and  well-rounded  com- 
position. This  idea  is  no  doubt  natural  enough,  but 
is  hardly  consistent  with  the  results  of  criticism  in 
other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  and  in  other 
literatures.  As  has  been  well  said  by  the  authors  of 
the  Corpus  Poetiaim  Boreale,  "  The  great  books  of  old 
time  are  accretions  ;  our  Psalter  is  such  a  one,  Homer 
is  such  a  one,  the  Sagas  are  such  a  one."     Ewald,  who 

1  Review  of  Genung's  Epic  of  the  Inner  Life  in  The  Nation, 
Aug.  27,  1 89 1, 


DRIVER,  343 

began  by  believing  in  the  unity  of  Genesis,  found  out 
that  this  unit\-  was  factitious;  may  it  not  very  natur- 
ally be  so  with  a  poem,  which,  like  the  dialogues  in 
Job,  prompted  to  imitation  and  to  contradiction  ?  1  )r. 
Driver's  able  forerunner  has  indeed  justified  his  own 
reluctance  to  disintegrate  by  his  desire  to  enjoy  the 
poem  as  much  as  he  can.  He  can  sympathize,  he 
tells  us,  with  those  persons  who  arc  "  so  intoxicated 
with  the  beauty  o[  a  great  creation,  that  they  do  not 
care  a  whit  how  it  arose."1  But  he  forgets  that  the 
true  critic  is  not  a  mere  dissector,  but  analyzes  in 
order  to  reconstruct,  and  that  there  are  disintccrratinGf 
critics  (take  for  instance  Dr.  Walter  Leaf-)  who  arc 
in  no  respect  hindered  by  their  criticism  from  the 
fullest  aesthetic  enjoyment  of  the  work  of  art  which 
they  criticize 

I  may  indeed  venture  to  go  further  and  ask,  Is 
the  Book  of  Job,  as  it  now  stands,  really  such  a  great 
work  of  art  ?  I  know  all  that  can  be  said  on  the 
difference  between  Eastern  and  Western  art,  and 
between  Eastern  and  Western  pyschology  ;  but  the 
difference  must  not  be  pressed  to  an  extreme.  I  am 
willing  to  admit — indeed,  I  did  in  1S87  expressly 
admit — that  the  six  accretions  indicated  in  my  Job 
and  Solomon  (pp.  67 — 69)  need  not  have  come  from 
as  man)-  different  writers.  The  Elihu-speeches,  how- 
ever, which  arc  the  most  obvious  of  the  accretions, 
cannot  have  come  from  the  writer  of  the   Dialogues 

1  Davidson,  Expositor^  1883,  p.  88. 

See  Leaf,  Companion  /<>  the  Iliad,  p.  18, 


344      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

(though  Kamphausen  once  thought  so).  Nor,  as  it 
would  seem,  can  the  Epilogue.  I  grant  that  the 
author  of  the  Dialogues  prefixed  to  his  work  not  only 
chap,  iii.,  but  also  chaps,  i.  and  ii.  But  I  cannot 
believe  that  he  meant  xlii.  7 — 17  to  be  the  denoument 
of  the  story  ; — that  hypothesis  at  least  no  ingenuity 
can  render  plausible.  "The  only  possible  close  of 
the  poem,  if  the  writer  is  not  untrue  to  his  deepest 
convictions,  is  that  the  Satan  should  confess  before 
Jehovah  and  the  court  of  heaven  that  there  are 
1  perfect  and  upright '  men  who  serve  God  without 
interested  motives." 1  Such  at  least  is  still  my  own 
opinion.  That  we  do  not  now  find  such  a  close,  only 
proves  either  (what  we  knew  before)  that  the  original 
poem  has  not  come  down  to  us  intact,  or  that  the 
Book  of  Job,  like  that  of  Koheleth,  was  left  in  an 
unfinished  state  by  the  author. 

Whether  the  other  passages  were,  or  were  not, 
added  by  the  author  is  to  some  extent  an  open 
question.  It  seems  to  me  extremely  hazardous  to 
suppose  that  the  writer  went  on  retouching  his  own 
work,  but  this  is  the  only  possible  course  for  those 
who  hold  out  against  the  view,  which  for  some  at 
least  of  the  added  passages  I  cannot  help  advocating. 
But  at  any  rate  one  thing  is  certain,  viz.  that  even 
after  removing  the  speeches  of  Elihu,  the  Book  of 
Job  does  not  form  a  genuine  whole — that  some  of 
the  original  passages  have  been  retouched  and  new 

1  Critical  Review,  May  1891,  p.  253  (the  present  writer's 
review  of  Hoffmann's  Hiob). 


DRIVER.  J  |  ' 

ones  added.  That  eminent  critic  Dillmann,  who  in 
spite  of  himself  continually  makes  such  gratifying 
concessions  to  young  scholars,  is  in  the  main  point  on 
my  side,1  and  so  arc  all  the  chief  workers  in  this 
department.  Against  me,  as  I  have  good  cause  to 
know,  there  stands  arrayed  the  host  of  English 
theological  reviewers.  But  how  many  of  these  h  tve 
made  a  serious  critical  stud)'  of  the  Book  of  Job  ? 
How  many  have  even  read  carefully — much  less 
worked  at — any  critical  work'  in  which  the  unity  of 
Job  is  denied,  and  have  assimilated  the  positive  side 
of  a  disintegrating  theory  ?  I  complain  of  my  friend 
Dr.  Driver  because,  with  the  best  intentions,  he  has 
made  it  more  difficult  for  ordinary  students  to  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  important  facts,  and  made  it 
possible  for  a  thoroughly  representative,  and  in  some 
respects  not  illiberal,  writer  in  a  leading  Anglican 
review  to  use  language  which  must,  I  fear,  be  qualified 
as  both  unseemly  and  misleading.2 

And  what  has  the  author  to  say  on  the  date  of  the 
poem,  or  rather  since  the  poem  has,  by  his  own 
admission,  been  added  to,  on  the  date  of  the  original 
work  and  of  the  Elihu-specches  ?  To  answer  th.it 
the  latter  were  added  by  "  a  somewhat  later  writer" 
is,  I  think,  only  defensible  if  the  original  poem  1>^ 
made  post-Exilic.  For  surely,  if  anything  has  grown 
clearer  of  late  years,  it  is  that  the  1  inguage  air!  i 

1  See   Dillmann,  Hiob   (1S91),   A7/.7.,  p.   xxviii,  and   cf.   his 
•  •marks  on  the  controverted  passages  in  the  course  of  the  book. 
'-'  Guardian^  Dec.  2,  1891. 


346      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

of  "  Elihu  "  are  those  of  some  part  of  the  post-Exilic 
period. 

The  new  edition  of  Dillmann's  Hiob  may  be  taken 
as  evidence  of  this.  He  still  makes  the  original 
poem  pre-Exilic  (though  nearer  to  B.C.  586  than 
formerly),  but  whereas  in  1869  he  thought  that  the 
Elihu-speeches  "  might  have  been  written  in  the 
course  of  the  sixth  century  "  (/'.  e.  possibly  before  the 
Return),  in  1891  he  tells  us  that  they  are  probably  to 
be  assigned  to  the  fifth  century.  As  to  the  original 
poem,  our  author  states  (as  I  did  myself  in  1887) 
that  "  it  will  scarcely  be  earlier  than  the  age  of 
Jeremiah,  and  belongs  most  probably  to  the  period  of 
the  Babylonian  captivity.'' 1 

Both  Dillmann  and  Dr.  Briggs  favour  the  former 
date ;  Umbreit,  Knobel,  Gratz,  and  Prof.  Davidson 
the  latter.  Gesenius  also  prefers  an  Exilic  date, 
but  will  not  deny  the  possibility  of  a  still  later 
one.  And  it  is  a  post-Exilic  date  which  many  critics 
{e.g.  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  Stade,  Hoffmann,2  Cornill) 

1  Prof.  Bissell,  I  observe,  hopes  to  prove  a  considerably 
earlier  date  by  the  help  of  GIase?Js  discoveries  in  Arabia  (Pres- 
byterian and  Reformed  Review,  Oct.  1 891).  He  refers  to  Prof. 
Sayce.  I  trust  that  Prof.  Whitehouse  will  be  more  cautious 
(see  Critical  Review,  Jan.  1892,  p.  12). 

2  Prof.  G.  Hoffmann's  arguments  (Hiob,  1S91)  do  not  perhaps 
materially  advance  the  discussion,  though  his  book  ought  to 
have  been  referred  to  by  our  author.  His  linguistic  proposals 
are  too  violent,  and  his  references  to  Zoroastrianism  do  not 
show  enough  study.  Nor  am  I  sure  that  he  has  added  much  of 
value  to  the  argument  from  parallel  passages.  On  the  latter  I 
venture  to  add  these  remarks  for  comparison  with  Dr.  Driver's 
valuable  section  (p.  408),    On  the  parallels  between  Job  and  the 


DRIVER.  347 

are  in  our  day  inclined  to  accept  Ought  not  this  to 
have  been  mentioned  ?  I  feel  myself  that  in  the 
present  position  of  the  criticism  of  the  Hagiographa 
a  post-Exilic  date  has  acquired  a  greater  degree  of 
plausibility.1  If,  for  instance,  the  Book  of  Proverbs 
is  in  the  main  a  composite  post-Exilic  work,  it 
becomes  at  once  in  a  higher  degree  probable  that  the 
Book  of  Job  is  so  too.  It  is  still  of  course  a  question 
to  be  argued  out  in  detail  ;  there  is  no  escaping  from 
the  discipline  of  hard  and  minute  investigation.  But, 
so  far  as  I  can  see,  the  evidence  collected,  when 
viewed  in  the  light  of  general  probabilities,  and  of 
the  results  attained  and  being  attained  elsewhere, 
justifies  us  in  asserting  that  the  whole  of  the  Book 
of  Job  belongs  most  probably  to  the   Persian  period. 

probably  or  certainly  Exilic  parts  of  ii.  Isaiah  it  is  difficult  to 
speak  confidently.  Not  need  we  perhaps  consider  the  Prologue 
of  Job  to  be  indebted  to  Zech.  iii.  ;  the  modes  of  representation 
used  were  "  in  the  air  "  in  the  post-Exilic  period.  And  as  to 
the  parallel  adduced  by  Cornill  (AY///.,  p.  234)  between  Job 
xlii.  17  and  Gen.  xxxv.  29,  xxv.  8  (both  P),  this,  if  admitted  as 
important,  will  only  affect  the  date  of  the  Epilogue.  Then  we 
turn  to  the  Psalms,  the  Song  of  Ilezekiah,  and  the  Lamenta- 
tions. It  would  be  difficult  indeed  to  say  that  Isa.  xxxviii.  10 — 
20,  or  that  Pss.  xxxix.  and  lxxxviii.  were  not  written  in  the  same 
period  as  Job,  and  these  works  can,  I  believe,  be  shown  to  be 
post-Exilic.  If  this  seems  doubtful  to  any  one,  yet  Ps.  viii.  5 
"  is  no  doubt  parodied  in  Job  vii.  17  :'  (Driver),  and  there  is  no 
reason  for  not  grouping  Ps.  viii.  with  the  Priestly  Code.  I 
admit  that  Lam.  iii.  is,  by  the  same  right  as  Ps.  lxxxviii.,  to  be 
viewed  as  in  a  large  sense  contemporary  with  Job  (see  Delitzsch, 
Hiob,  p.  24).  But  what  is  the  date  of  the  Lamentations?  See 
farther  on. 

1  Comp.  Bampton  I.ect.*  p.  202. 


34$      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

On  linguistic  grounds1  I  should  like  to  put  the  main 
part  of  the  book  in  the  first  half  of  this  period,  and 
the  Elihu-speeches  in  the  second,  but  these  grounds 
are  not  by  themselves  decisive. 

A  word  must  here  be  said  on  a  subject  which  will 
be  in  the  mind  of  many  readers.  These  critical 
results  must  have  some  bearing  on  theories  of 
inspiration.  But  what  bearing  ?  I  have  an  uneasy 
feeling  that  the  remark  on  page  405 — that  "precisely 
the  same  inspiration  attaches  to  [the  Elihu-speeches] 
which  attaches  to  the  poem  generally " — is  hardly 
penetrating  enough,  and  that  by  such  a  half-truth 
Dr.  Driver  has  unwisely  blunted  the  edge  of  his 
critical  decision.  Of  course,  the  Elihu-speeches  are 
inspired  ;  they  are  touched  by  the  same  religious 
influences  which  pervade  all  the  genuine  Church 
records  of  the  Exilic  or  post-Exilic  period  which  are 
contained  in  the  Hagiographa.  But  it  can  hardly  be 
said  that  these  speeches  have  the  same  degree  of 
inspiration  as  the  rest  of  the  Book  of  Job,  at  least  if 
the  general  impression  of  discriminating  readers  may 
be  trusted.  The  creator  of  u  Elihu  "  may  have  some 
deeper  ideas,  but  he  has  not  as  capacious  a  vessel  to 
receive  them  as  the  older  poet.2  And  though  it  may 
be  true  that  he  had  a  good  motive,  and  that  the 
course  which  he  took  was  sanctioned  by  the  religious 

1  These  grounds  are  briefly  indicated  by  Dr.  Driver  on  p.  404 
(§  8)  and  p.  406  (top) ;  cf.  my  Job  and  Solomon,  pp.  291 — 295. 
Besides  Budde's  Beitriige,  Stickel  {Hfob,  1842,  pp.  248—262)  still 
deserves  to  be  consulted  on  the  Elihu-portion. 

2  See  Job  and  Solomon,  pp.  42    -44. 


i'klYKK.  ^49 

authorities  of  the  day,  vet  it  is  certain  both  that  lie 
has  defects  from  which  the  earlier  writer  is  free,  and 
that  he  has  for  modem  readers  greatly  hindered  the 
beneficial  effect  of  the  rest  of  the  poem.  We  must 
not,  in  short,  force  ourselves  to  reverence  these  two 
poets  in  an  equal  degree. 

I  admit  that  the  difficulties  which  theories  of 
inspiration  have  to  encounter  in  the  Song  of  Songs, 
Ecclesiastes,  and  Esther  are  still  greater,  and  I  think 
that  Dr.  Driver  would  have  facilitated  the  reception 
of  his  critical  results  on  these  books  if  he  had  at  once 
taken  up  a  strong  position  with  reference  to  these 
difficulties.  It  might  even  have  been  enough  to 
quote  a  luminous  passage  from  a  lecture  by  Prof. 
Robertson  Smith,1  the  upshot  of  which  is  that  these 
three  books  "  which  were  still  disputed  among  the 
orthodox  Jews  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  to  which  the 
New  Testament  never  makes  reference,"-  and,  let  me 
add,  which  do  not  seem  to  be  touched  by  the  special 
religious  influences  referred  to  above,  arc  not  for  us 
Christians  in  the  truest  sense  of  the  word  canonical.3 
These  books  however  arc  intensely  interesting,  and  a 
"  frank  and  reverent  study  of  the  texts  "  shows  that 

1  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  pp.  17J.  175  :  cf. 
Wiklcbocr,  Die  Entstehung  des  alt  test.  Kanons  (1891),  pp.  150, 
152. 

2  See  however  Trench,  Seven  Churches  of  Asia,  pp.  225, 

3  Of  the  Song  of  Songs,  Lowth,  writing  t<>  Warburton  in 
1756,  says:  "If  you  deny  that  it  is  an  allegory,  you  must  ex- 
clude it  from  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture  ;  fur  it  holds  it--  place 
there  by  no  other  tenure"  (Warburton-  Works,  by  llurd,  xii. 
458)- 


350      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

they  "  have  their  use  and  value  even  for  us,"  and 
my  only  regret  is  that  in  Esther  and  Ecclesiastes,  at 
any  rate,  Dr.  Driver  is  slightly  more  ''moderate" 
than  was  necessary,  and  that  he  does  not  make  it 
quite  as  easy  as  it  might  have  been  for  some  of  his 
readers  to  agree  with  him. 

I  pass  to  a  book  in  which  I  have  long  had  so 
special  an  interest  that  it  will  require  an  effort  to  be 
brief — the  glorious  Song  of  Songs.  Our  author 
rejects  the  old  allegorical  interpretation  as  artificial 
and  extravagant  (p.  423),  but  does  not  regard 
Delitzsch's  modification  of  it  as  untenable,  provided 
it  be  admitted  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  poem 
itself  to  suggest  it.  His  meaning,  I  presume,  is  this 
— that  the  Song  is  only  allegorical  in  so  far  as  all 
true  marriage  to  a  religious  mind  is  allegorical,1  but 
that  we  cannot  suppose  the  poet  to  have  thought  of 
this  allegory  when  he  wrote,  and  that,  his  own  mean- 
ing being  so  beautiful,  it  is  almost  a  pity  to  look 
beyond  it.  Dr.  Driver's  treatment  of  the  Song  is 
marked  by  much  reserve.  He  does  indeed  commit 
himself  to  the  lyrical  drama  theory,  without  consider- 
ing whether  the  poet  may  not  to  some  extent  have 
worked  up  current  popular  songs  (just  as  Poliziano 
did  in  Medicsean  Florence)  ;  and  though  he  puts  two 
forms  of  this  theory  (Delitzsch's  and  Ewald's)  very 
thoroughly  before  the  reader,  he  evidently  prefers  the 
latter,  with  some  modifications  from  Oettli.     Still  one 

1  Cf.  Julia  Wedgewood,   The   Moral  Ideal  (1888),  pp.  269, 
270. 


I'CIVII;.  351 

feels  after  all  that  he  has  not  given  us  a  thorough 
explanation  of  the  Song.  This  was  perhaps  justifiable 
in  the  present  state  of  exegesis.  For  though  the 
poem  has  not  been  altogether  neglected  by  recent 
scholars,  with  the  exception  of  Gratz  and  Stickcl 
none  of  them  has  seriously  grappled  afresh  with  the 
problem  of  its  origin.  To  Gratz  (in  spite  of  his  many 
faults  as  a  scholar)  and  Stickel  the  student  should 
have  been  expressly  referred  ; l  the  mention  of  the 
former  on  p.  423  seems  to  me  far  from  sufficient. 
Help  may  also  be  got  from  Prof.  Robertson  Smith's 
able  article  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica  (1876), 
and  by  the  section  relative  "to  the  Song  in  Reuss' 
French  edition  of  the  Bible. 

For  determining  the  date  of  the  Song  the  linguistic 
argument  is  of  more  than  common  importance. 
Here  I  must  complain  that  such  a  thorough  Hebraist 
as  Dr.  Driver  hesitates  so  much.  The  only  fresh 
ground  for  uncertainty  is  the  discovery  of  a  weight  on 
the  site  of  Samaria,  ascribed  to  the  eighth  century, 
with  btt7  as  in  Song  i.  6  (viii.  12),  iii.  7.  Apart  from 
this,  a  linguist  would  certainly  say  that  this  pleonastic 
periphrasis  proved  the  late  date  of  the  poem  as  it 
stands,  but  now  it  seems  permissible  to  Dr.  Driver 
to  doubt.  That  I  reluctantly  call  an  unwise  com- 
promising with  tradition.  In  1876  (the  date  of  Prof. 
Robertson  Smith's  article)  we  did  not  sec  our  way  in 
the  post-Exilic    period    as  we  do  now.     If  there    is 

1  Shekel's  book  appeared  in  iSSS,  and  was  ably  reviewed  by 
Prof.  Budde  {Thiol  Lit.-ztg.,  iSSS,  No.  6). 


352      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

anything  in  the  contents  of  the  Song  which  expresses 
a  pre-Exilic  date,  let  it  be  pointed  out.  Meantime 
all  the  facts  as  yet  elicited  by  exegesis  can  be  ex- 
plained quite  as  well  on  the  assumption  of  a  late  date 
as  of  an  early  one.  Let  us  then  (failing  any  fresh 
exegetical  evidence)  hear  no  more  of  the  Song  of 
Deborah  and  the  early  north-Israelitish  dialect.  It 
is  certain  that  the  use  of  w  for  nttfS  is  specially  cha- 
racteristic of  late  writings  ;  certain,  that  npp'^  Song  i. 
7  is  analogous  to  V?$  Jon.  i.  7,  and  also  to  i£;$  ?$| 
Eccles.  viii.  17,  and  HD^  T^\S:  Dan.  i.  10  (the  fuller 
relative  used  as  in  Jon.  i.  8  l  [contrast  ver.  7],  in  a 
carefully  expressed  speech)  ;  certain,  too,  that  some 
at  least  of  the  loan-words  mentioned  on  pp.  422,  423 
(note  3)  point  definitely  to  the  post-Exilic  period 
(even  one  or  two  Greek  words  seem  highly  probable). 
Kuenen  in  1865,  in  spite  of  his  preconceived  theory 
of  an  early  date,  admitted  that  "the  language  seemed, 
at  first  sight,  to  plead  for  the  Persian  period " ; 
Gesenius  and  M.  Sachs — a  great  Christian  and  a 
great  Jewish  Hebraist — have  expressed  themselves 
still  more  strongly  on  the  "modern  Hebrew"  of  the 
Song  of  Songs.  It  is  also  highly  probable  that  a 
careful  study  of  the  names  of  plants  in  the  Song 
would  favour  a  post-Exilic  date.  Nor  can  the 
parallelisms  between  this  book  and  that  "  song  of 
loves"  (or,  love),  the  45th  Psalm,  be  ignored.  If  that 
psalm  is  post-Exilic,  so  also  presumably  is  the  Song 

1  I  do  not  take  the  fuller  phrase  in  ver.  8  to  be  a  gloss  (cf. 
the  four  lines  added  by  Dr.  Driver  on  p.  301  in  2nd  edition). 


DRIVER.  353 

of  Songs.1  Rut  Dr.  Driver's  researches  on  the  Psalms 
have  not  yet  perhaps  led  him  to  see  what  to  me  is 
now  so  clear,  and  I  am  therefore  content  to  have 
shown  that,  quite  apart  from  this,  the  facts  admitted 
by  Dr.  Driver  point  rather  to  a  late  than  to  an  early 
date,  and  that  we  cannot  therefore  safely  assume, 
with  our  author,  that  the  poem  has  a  basis  of  fact. 
Readers  of  Delitzsch's  delightful  essay  on  "  Dancing, 
and  Pentateuch-Criticism"2  do  not  need  to  be 
assured  that  the  post-Exilic  period  was  not  without 
the  enlivenment  of  secular  dancing  and  song. 

And  now  comes  another  little  disappointment — 
another  little  compromise  with  conservatism,  which  I 
should  prefer  to  glide  gently  over,  but  for  the  illusion 
which  is  growing  up  among  us  that  paring  down  the 
results  of  criticism  is  necessary  for  a  truly  Christian 
teaching.  The  Rook  of  Ruth,  according  to  our 
author,  is  a  prose  idyll,  similar,  I  presume,  to  that 
which  may  have  lain  in  the  mind  of  the  author  of 
that  idyllic  group  of  quasi-dramatic  tableaux — the 
Song  of  Songs,  and  based,  like  the  Song  (according 
to  Dr.  Driver),  on  tradition.  We  are  told  th.it 
"  the  basis  of  the  narrative  consists,  it  may  reason- 

1  See  Bampton  Lectures,  pp.  167,  179  (cf.  p.  298).  On  p.  167 
(foot),  read  "can  be  better  accounted  for."  I  do  not  see  where 
to  find  a  situation  for  either  of  these  poems  before  the  Greek 
period.  One  of  the  early  and  fortunate  reigns  must  of  course  be 
selected.     But  I  hold  myself  open  to  correction. 

2  Delitzsch,  Iris  (E.  T.),  pp.  189-  204.  The  Mishna  (  TaanstA, 
iv.  8  ;  see  Wunsche,  Talm.,  i.  473)  tells  how  Song  iii.  11  was 
sung  in  the  vineyard  dances. 

I  \ 


354      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

ably  be  supposed,  of  the  family  traditions  respecting 
Ruth  and  her  marriage  with  Boaz.  These  have  been 
cast  into  a  literary  form  by  the  [pre-Exilic]  author, 
who  has,  no  doubt,  to  a  certain  extent  idealized  both 
the  characters  and  the  scenes.  Distance  seems  to 
have  mellowed  the  rude,  unsettled  age  of  the  Judges" 
(pp.  427,  428). 

This  description  seems  to  soften  the  facts  a  little 
too  much.     It  is  not  merely  a  "  mellowed  "  picture 
that  we  have  before  us,  but,  as  Mr.   Cobb  has  re- 
marked,1 complete  "  contrariety  of  spirit,  style,  social 
life,  and  public  affairs."     Nor  is  anything  gained  by 
postulating    an     uncertain     amount     of    traditional 
material ;  the  story  of  Ruth  is  practically  as  imagin- 
ative as  that  of  Tobit,  and  is  none  the  less  edifying 
on  this  account.     But  let  us  see  how  the  acute  and 
learned  author  endeavours  to  prove  a  pre-Exilic  date. 
The  genealogy,  as  he  admits,  "  appears  to  suggest 
an   Exilic  or  post-Exilic  date,"  but  this  "forms  no 
integral- part  of  the  book,"  while,  in  spite  of  many 
isolated  expressions 2  which,  taken  together,  seem  at 
first   sight   to   point  to   the  post-Exilic   period,  the 

1  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Oct.  1891,  p.  662. 

2  ]T\b,  "I3b>,  D*p  are,  I  think,  decisive.  I  incline  to  add  *&, 
which  before  the'Exile  is  poetical  (see  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  84). 
Dr.  Driver  regards  Ruth  iv.  7  (^P)  as  a  gloss,  cf.  1  Sam.  ix.  9. 
But  the  latter  passage  is  embedded  in  a  pre-Exilic  section, 
whereas  Ruth  iv.  7  occurs  ex  hyp.  in  a  post-Exilic  narrative. 
The  narrator  tries  to  throw  himself  back  into  early  times,  but 
has  to  explain  a  custom  unknown  to  his  post-Exilic  readers 
Nor  is  there  any  special  reason  to  regard  fn?  as  a  word  of  the 
early  northern  dialect  (p.  427). 


DRIVER.  355 

11  general  beauty  and  purity  of  the  style  of  Ruth 
point  decidedly  to  the  pre-Exilic  period."  We  are 
not  told  whether  the  book  was  written  before  or  after 
Deuteronomy  (which  is  referred  on  p.  82  to  the  reign 
of  Manasseh),  but  it  is  pointed  out  that  the  peculiar 
kind  of  marriage  referred  to  in  chapters  iii.  and  iv.  is 
not  strictly  that  of  levirate  (Deut.  xxv.  5),  and  that 
the  reception  of  Ruth  into  an  Israelitish  family 
"  appears  to  conflict  with  Deuteronomy  xxiii.  2." 
In  reply,  it  may  be  said  (1)  that  in  order  to  give  the 
11  present  condition  of  investigation  "  it  was  important 
to  give  a  much  fuller  statement  of  the  grounds  on 
which  "  most  modern  critics  consider  Ruth  to  be 
Exilic  (Ewald)  or  post-Exilic  (Bertheau,  Wellhausen, 
Kuenen,  &c.) "  ;  (2)  that  by  Dr.  Driver's  very  candid 
admission  "the  style  of  the  prose-parts  of  Job  ['most 
probably '  Exilic,  p.  405]  is  not  less  pure  * ;  (3)  that 
the  religious  liberality  of  the  writer  and  the  family 
relations  which  he  describes  in  the  book  are  perfectly 
intelligible  in  the  post-Exilic  period  (cf.  on  the  one 
hand  the  Book  of  Jonah,  and  on  the  other  Kuenen's 
remark  on  Leviticus  xviii. and  xx.,  HcxatcucJi^.  268); 
and  (4)  there  is  clearly  no  necessity  to  suppose  the 
genealogy  to  have  been  added  in  a  later  age.  In  fact 
the  one  excuse  for  giving  this  book  an  earlier  date 
than  that  of  Jonah  is  the  greater  flavour  of  antiquity 
which  it  possesses  (notice  the  points  of  contact  with 
Samuel  given  by  Bertheau  in  the  Kurzgif,  Handbucht 
p.  286).1    Its  real  design  is,  not  to  glorify  the  Davidic 

1  See  Dr.  Driver,  p.  302,  and  cf.  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  306. 


356     FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

house,  but  to  show  the  universality  of  God's  love. 
Just  as  our  Lord  exhibits  a  Samaritan  as  the  model 
of  practical  piety,  so  the  unknown  writer  of  this 
beautiful  little  book  brings  before  us  a  Moabitish 
woman  as  the  model  of  an  affectionate  daughter  who 
receives  the  highest  earthly  reward.1 

The  five  Lamentations  deserve  attention,  not  only 
for  some  classic  beauties  of  expression  which  have 
endeared  them  to  the  Christian  heart,  but  as  (perhaps) 
the   earliest  monuments  of  the  piety  of  regenerate 
Israel,  and  as  (perhaps)  supplying  presumptive  evi- 
dence of  the  cultivation  of  religious  lyric  poetry  long 
before  the  Exile.    Nowhere  perhaps  does  Dr.  Driver's 
individuality  show  itself  more  strikingly  than  here. 
What  pains  he  takes  to  soften  the  prejudices  of  old- 
fashioned   readers,  and  give  the  principal    result  of 
criticism  in  its  most  moderate  form!   To  unprejudiced 
students,   however,    he    may   seem   timid,   and    it   is 
certainly   strange   to   hear   that    "  even    though   the 
poems   be   not   the   work   of  Jeremiah,  there  is  no 
question  that  they  are  the  work  of  a  contemporary 
(or  contemporaries)."     Nagelsbach  long  ago  saw  that 
at  any  rate  Lamentations  ii.  implies  an  acquaintance 
with  the   Book  of  Ezekiel,   and,   to  Dr.  Driver,  the 
affinities    between    all    the    Lamentations    and    the 
prophecies  of  Jeremiah  ought  surely  to  suggest  that 
the  author  (or  authors)  had  made  a  literary  study  of 
that  book.     A   considerable  interval  must  therefore 

1  Comp.  Talm.  Bab.,  Sanhedrin,  96  b  (Wiinsche,  iii.  188),  where 
still  bolder  flights  are  taken. 


DRIVER.  357 

have  elapsed  between  B.C.  586  and  the  writing  of  the 

Lamentations,1  and  the  language  used  in  Lament- 
ations v.  20  (comp.  Isa.  xlii.  14,  lvii.  11)  points  rather 
to  the  end  than  to  the  beginning  of  the  Exile.  This 
period  is,  moreover,  the  earliest  which  will  suit  the 
parallelisms  between  Lamentations  iii.  and  the  Book 
of  Job  (referred  in  this  work  to  the  Exile),  which  are 
more  easily  explained  on  the  supposition  that  the 
elegy  is  dependent  on  Job  than  on  the  opposite 
theory.2  It  ought  however  to  be  mentioned  that 
there  are  plausible  grounds  for  giving  a  still  later 
date  to  the  third  elegy,  in  which  Jerusalem  is  not 
once  mentioned,  and  which  it  is  difficult  not  to  asso- 
ciate with  the  Jeremianic  psalms.  If  Psalm  xxxi.  is 
post-Exilic  (and  any  other  theory  seems  to  me  ex- 
tremely improbable),  so  also  is  Lamentations  iii.,  and 
of  course  we  must  add,  if  the  poem  of  Job  (as  a 
whole)  is  post-Exilic,  so  also  is  Lamentations  iii. 
And  though  I  do  not  for  a  moment  deny  that  lament- 
ations were  indited  during  the  Exile  (the  Books  of 
Ezekiel  and  of  ii.  Isaiah  sufficiently  prove  this),  yet 
the  mere  fact  that  the  authors  of  Lamentations  i.,  ii., 
iv.,  and  v.  refer  so  prominently  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
is  no  conclusive  proof  that  these  lamentations  too 
were  not  written  in  Judah  after  the  Return.  The 
dramatic  imaginativeness  of  the  psalmists  has,  I 
believe,  been  proved,8  and  the  peculiar  rhythm  called 

1  See  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith's  excellent  article  in  Encyclopedia 
Britannica. 
-  Sec  my  Lamentations  {Pulpit  Coming,  [ntrod.  p.  iii. 
3  Cf.  my  commentary  on  Pss.  Ixxiv.  and  exxxvii.    The  Second 


358      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

"elegiac"  has  been  traced  by  Budde  (though  not 
with  certainty)  in  many  productions  of  the  post- 
Exilic  age.  It  seems  to  me  far  from  impossible  that, 
just  as  the  Church  of  the  Second  Temple  composed 
its  own  psalms,  so  it  preferred  to  indite  fresh  elegies 
for  use  on  the  old  fast-days.1 

The  next  section  is  one  of  the  very  best  in  this 
part  of  the  volume — it  is  on  Ecclesiastes.  I  will  not 
occupy  space  with  summarizing  it,  but  urge  the 
student  to  master  its  contents.  I  quite  agree  with 
Dr.  Driver  that  the  work  may  possibly  be  a  work  of 
the  Greek  period.  The  language,  as  I  remarked  in 
1887,  favours  (though  it  does  not  absolutely  require) 
a  later  date  than  that  suggested  by  Ewald  (close  of 
the  Persian  period).  The  objection  that  if  the  book 
be  of  the  Greek  period,  we  have  a  right  to  expect 
definite  traces  of  Greek  influence,  I  now  see  to  be 
inconclusive  ;  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach 
contains  none,  and  yet  belongs  to  the  Greek  period.2 

Isaiah,  too,  describes  imaginatively  in  "elegiac  rhythm"  (if 
Budde  may  be  followed)  the  state  of  captured  Jerusalem  (Isa.  li. 
17 — 20). 

1  Discussion  of  this  delicate  question  I  must  here  renounce. 
Since  these  chapters  were  written  Dyserinck  has  favoured  us 
with  some  valuable  remarks  of  Kuenen  on  the  possibility  of  a 
post-Exilic  date  for  these  poems  {Theol.  Tijdschr.  July  1892). 
It  was  his  wish  that  the  book  might  be  studied  anew  from  a 
linguistic  point  of  view.  But  he  admitted  the  difficulty  caused  by 
the  alphabetic  form  of  the  poems  and  their  similarity  to  certain 
psalms.  Dyserinck  himself  proposes  to  publish  an  elaborate 
treatment  of  the  subject. 

2  On  supposed  Greek  influences,  see,  besides  Menzel,  Qohelet 
und die  nacharistotelische  Philosophic,  von  August  Palm  (18S5). 


DRIVER,  359 

Moreover,  Hellenism  must  have  influenced  very  many 
who  did  not  definitely  adopt  Greek  theories.  Certainly 
the  work  is  very  un-Jewish.  Very  probably  Kuenen 
is  correct  in  dating  it  about  200  B.C.,  i.  c.  about  forty 
years  before  the  great  Maccab&an  rising  (so  too  Mr. 
Tyler).  Dr.  Driver  admits  the  force  of  his  reasoning, 
though  he  still  not  unreasonably  hesitates.  He  is  him- 
self strongest  on  the  linguistic  side  of  the  argument ; 
see  especially  his  note  on  the  bearings  of  Prof.  Mar- 
goliouth's  attempted  restorations  of  Ben  Sira  (p.  447). 
I  cannot  equally  follow  him  in  his  argument  against 
a  theory  which  I  myself  hold,  viz.  that  the  text  of 
Ecclesiastes  has  been  manipulated  in  the  interests  of 
orthodoxy.  As  was  remarked  above,  the  book  is  not 
in  the  strictest  sense  canonical,  and  we  have  therefore 
no  interest  in  creating  or  magnifying  difficulties  in  a 
theory  which  is  intrinsically  probable,  and  is  supported 
by  numerous  phenomena  in  the  later  period. 

The  section  on  Esther  is  also  in  the  main  very 
satisfactory.  But  why  are  we  told  that  this  narrative 
(which  was  not  canonical  according  to  St.  Athanasius, 
and  which,  fascinating  as  it  is,  we  can  hardly  venture 
to  call  inspired)  cannot  reasonably  be  doubted  to  have 
a  historical  basis  ?  Is  it  because  of  the  appeal  to 
Persian  chronicles  (Esth.  ii.  23;  x.  2;  cf.  ix.  32)? 
But  it  is  of  the  essence  of  the  art  of  romance  not  to 
shrink  from  appeals  to  fictitious  authorities.  One 
may  however  admit  that  a  story  like  Esther,  which 
professed  to  account  for  the  origin  of  a  popular 
festival,    probably    had    a   traditional,   though    not   a 


3'6o      FOUNDERS  OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

historical,  basis.  On  this  point  reference  may  be 
made  to  Kuenen's  Onderzoek  (ed.  2),  p.  551,  and 
Zimmern  in  Stade's  Zeitschrift,  1891,  p.  168.  The 
latter  thinks  (and  both  Jensen  and  Lagarde  agree) 
that  the  Feast  of  Purim  may  be  derived  ultimately 
from  a  Babylonian  New  Year's  Feast,  and  that  the 
story  of  the  struggle  between  Mordecai  and  Haman 
was  suggested  by  a  Babylonian  New  Year's  legend 
of  the  struggle  between  Marduk  and  Tiamat.  This 
coincides  curiously  with  the  views  proposed  above  to 
explain  the  origin  of  the  Jonah-narrative.  Of  course, 
the  story  may  have  been  enriched  with  Persian 
elements  (on  which  see  Lagarde  and  Kuenen  x)  before 
it  was  Hebraized  by  a  Jewish  story-teller. 

Dr.  Driver's  linguistic  argument  for  placing  Esther 
in  the  fourth  or  third  century  B.C.  is  excellent.  But 
there  is  one  important  omission  in  his  brief  discussion. 
If  the  date  is  so  early,  how  is  it  that  the  earliest 
independent  evidence  for  the  observance  of  Purim  in 
Judaea  is  in  2  Maccabees  (see  p.  452)  ?  Moreover, 
there  is  no  mention  of  Mordecai  and  Esther  2  in  Ben 
Sira's  "  praise  of  famous  men  "  (Eccles.  xliv. — xlix.), 
which  would  be  strange  if  Purim  and  its  story  were 
well  known  in  Judaea  in  B.C.  180.  May  not  the  festival 
have  been  introduced  into  Judaea,  and  the  Book  of 

1  Lagarde's  treatise  Purim  (1887)  is  important  ;  Dr.  Driver's 
reference  gives  no  idea  of  this.  See  also  his  Mittheilungen,  ii. 
378 — 381,  iv.  347.  On  Persian  legendary  elements,  see  also 
Kuenen,  Oud.,  ed.  2,  ii.  551,  and  cf.  Cornill,  EinL,  p.  253. 

2  Cf.  Ben  Sira's  silence  as  to  Daniel  (see/00  and  Solomon, 
p.  194). 


DRIVER.  361 

Esther  have  been  written  some  time  alter  the  Macca- 
baean  War  (so  Reuss,  Kucncn,  and  Cornill)  ?  Or, 
though  this  seems  less  probable,  the  book  may  have 
been  written  by  a  Persian  Jew  in  the  third  century, 
but  not  brought  to  Palestine  till  later.  Dr.  Driver 
ought  perhaps  to  have  mentioned  this  theory  (Mr. 
Bcvan,  Daniel,  p.  29,  notes  two  significant  words 
which  Esther  has  in  common  with  Daniel).  He 
might  also  have  added  to  his  "  literature  "  my  article 
"Esther"  in  Enc.  Brit.  (1878);  Cassel's  Esther 
(1888)  ;  and  Dieulafoy,  "  Le  livre  d'Esther  et  1c 
palais  d'Assuerus  "  in  Revue  des  etudes  juives,  1888 
(Actes  et  Conferences). 

Nor  can  I  help  giving  hearty  praise  to  the  sections 
on    Chronicles,   Ezra,    and    Nehemiah.     The    details, 
especially  on  style,  are  worked  out  with  great  care. 
The  only  objection  that  I  shall  raise  relates  to  the 
sketch  of  the  method  and   spirit  of  the   Chronicler, 
which    I   could    have  wished    not    less   reverent,  but 
bolder  and  more  distinct  in  expression.     We  are  all 
familiar  with  the  attacks  to  which  writers  like   Dr. 
Driver   are    exposed  ;    some    of    the    most   vigorous 
passages    of    Bishop    Ellicott's    recent    Charge    are 
directed  against  that  strangest  of  all   theories — "  an 
inspiration  of   repainting    history " — to  which    these 
reverent-minded  writers   are  supposed   to  have  com- 
mitted themselves.     If  Dr.  Driver  had   only  been  a 
little    clearer   on    the    subjects  of  inspiration  and  of 
the  growth  of  the  Canon,  how  much  simpler  would 
have   been    his  task,   especially   in    dealing  with  the 


362      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

Hagiographa !  Of  course,  the  Chronicles  are  in- 
spired, not  as  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah, 
but  as  even  a  sermon  might  be  called  inspired,  i.  e. 
touched  in  a  high  degree  with  the  best  spiritual 
influences  of  the  time.  Dr.  Driver  says  (preface,  p. 
xvi) — "It  was  the  function  of  inspiration  to  guide 
the  individual  [historian]  in  the  choice  and  dis- 
position of  his  material,  and  in  his  use  of  it  for  the 
inculcation  of  special  lessons." 

But  clearly  this  can  be  true  of  the  Chronicler  only 
with  those  limitations,  subject  to  which  the  same 
thing  could  be  said  of  any  conscientious  and  humble- 
minded  preacher  of  the  Christian  Church.  And  if 
these  limitations  cannot  be  borne  in  mind,  it  is  better 
to  drop  the  word  altogether,  and  express  what  we 
mean  by  some  other  term.  That  there  are  some 
passages  in  Chronicles  which  have  a  specially  inspir- 
ing quality,  and  may  therefore  be  called  inspired,  is 
not  of  course  to  be  denied.  But  upon  the  whole,  as 
Prof.  Robertson  Smith  truly  says,1  the  Chronicler  "  is 
not  so  much  a  historian  as  a  Levitical  preacher  on 
the  old  history."  The  spirit  of  the  Deuteronomistic 
editor  of  the  earlier  narrative  books  has  found  in  him 
its  most  consistent  representative.  He  omits  some 
facts  and  colours  others  in  perfect  good  faith  accord- 
ing to  a  preconceived  religious  theory,  to  edify 
himself  and  his  readers.  He  also  adds  some  new 
facts,  not  on  his  own  authority,  but  on  that  of  earlier 

1  The  Old  Test,  in  the  Jewish  Church,  ed.  1,  p.  420. 


DRIVER.  363 

records,  but  we  dare  not  say  that  he  had  any  greater 
skill  than  his  neighbours  in  sifting  the  contents  of 
these  records,  if  indeed  he  had  any  desire  to  do  so. 
Dr.  Driver's  language  (p.  501)  respecting  the  "  tra- 
ditional element "  used  by  the  Chronicler  seems 
therefore  somewhat  liable  to  misunderstanding.1 

The  only  remaining  section  of  the  book  relates  to 
the  Book  of  Daniel,  and  upon  this,  as  might  be 
expected,  Dr.  Driver's  individuality  has  left  a  strong 
impress.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  student  can 
fully  trust  the  facts  which  are  here  stored  up  in 
abundance,  also  that  the  conclusions  arrived  at  are 
in  the  main  judicious,  and  the  mode  of  their  pre- 
sentation considerate.  And  yet  helpful,  very  helpful, 
as  this  section  is,  it  does  not  fully  satisfy  a  severely 
critical  standard.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  blame  the 
author  for  this  ;  I  sympathize  too  deeply  with  the 
conflict  of  feelings  amid  which  he  must  have  written. 
I  would  speak  frankly,  but  (on  the  grounds  already 
mentioned)  without  assumption  of  superiority.  First 
of  all,  I  think  it  a  misfortune  that  the  sketch  of  the 
contents  of  the  book  could  not  have  been  shortened. 
I  know  the  excuse ;  there  existed  in  English  no 
commentary  on  Daniel  sufficiently  critical  to  be 
referred  to.  But  on  the  other  hand,  there  was  the 
most     urgent    need    for    more    preliminary    matter, 

1  To  the  "literature"  of  Ezra  I  should  add  Nestle,  "Zur 
Frage  nach  der  urspriinglichcn  Einheit  der  Biicher  Chronik, 
Esra,  Neh.,"  in  Studien  it.  KriHken^  1879,  pp.  517—520:  van 
Hoonacker,  "  Ndhemie  et  Esdras  ;  nouvelle  hypothese,"  in  Lc 
Muscon,  1890. 


364      FOUNDERS  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

especially  on  the  characteristics  of  this  book.  Or- 
dinary readers  simply  cannot  understand  Daniel. 
Modern  culture  supplies  no  key  to  it,  as  the  late  Mr. 
Gilbert's  interesting  paper  in  the  Expositor  for  June 
1889  conclusively  shows.  I  do  not  undervalue  the 
judicious  remarks  on  pp.  480 — 482,  but  on  "apoca- 
lyptic" literature  something  more  was  wanted  than 
bare  references  to  various  German  authors,  one  of 
whom  (Smend)  ought,  as  I  think,  to  have  been  made 
much  more  prominent.1  Secondly,  I  think  that  a 
freer  use  should  have  been  made  of  the  cuneiform 
inscriptions,  especially  considering  the  unfriendly 
criticisms  of  Prof.  Sayce.  In  this  respect  I  believe 
myself  to  have  long  ago  set  a  good  example,  though 
my  article  on  Daniel  [Enc.  Brit.,  1876)  of  course 
requires  much  modification  and  expansion.2  And 
here  let  me  repair  an  omission  in  chap.  xi.  Dr. 
Driver  should,  I  think,  in  dealing  with  Hexateuch 
criticism,  have  taken  some  account  of  Assyrian  and 
Egyptian  investigations.  Even  if  he  thought  it  safer 
not  to  speak  too  positively  on  the  bearings  of  these 
researches  on  the  question  of  the  dates  of  documents, 
he  ought,  I  think,  to  have  "  indicated  the  way  for 
future  progress "  (editor's  preface),  and  so  have  pre- 
vented   (so    far   as    in    him    lay)   the   vehement   but 

1  Dr.  Wright's  work  on  Daniel  in  the  Pulpit  Comme?itary 
will,  I  am  sure,  be  full  of  learned  and  honest  discussion.  But 
when  will  it  appear?  Mr.  Bevan's  Short  Commentary  on 
Daniel  (1892)  is  so  good  that  we  may  even  ask  him  for  some- 
thing more  complete,  though  not  more  careful  and  critical. 

2  See  also  Bampton  Led.,  pp.  105 — 107  (cf.  94,  296). 


DRIVER.  365 

erroneous  criticisms  of  Prof.  Saycc.1  But  on  the 
relation  of  cuneiform  rcsearcli  to  the  criticism  of 
Daniel  no  reserve  was  called  for.  It  would  have  been 
quite  right  to  say  that  the  statement  respecting 
Belteshazzar  in  Daniel  iv.  was  erroneous,  and  that 
the  names  Ashpenaz,  Shadrach,  and  Meshach  could 
not  have  been  put  forward  as  Babylonian  in  Exilic 
times  ; 2  also  that  Hamelsar  (probably)  and  Abed- 
nego  (certainly)  are  ignorant  deformations  of  Baby- 
lonian names,  and  that  though  Arioch  is  doubtless 
Eri-aku,  yet  this  name  was  probably  obtained  from 
Genesis  xiv.  1.  And  much  more  might,  I  think,  have 
been  made  of  the  writer's  slight  acquaintance  with 
Babylonian  ideas  and  customs.  Above  all,  while  on 
"the  Chaldeans "  and  on  Belshazzar  very  just  re- 
marks are  made,  on  "  Darius  the  Mede  "  we  get  this 
unfortunate  compromise  between  criticism  and  con- 
servatism   (p.   469;    cf.    p.   479,    note2) — "Still    the 

1  I  referred  to  this  at  the  Church  Congress  in  1S83  (Job  and 
Solomon,  p.  6),  and  Prof.  Robertson  Smith  wrote  an  acute 
paper  on  "  Archaeology  and  the  Date  of  the  Pentateuch  "  in  the 
Coniemp.  Rev.  for  October  1887.  Against  the  coloured  state- 
ments of  Prof.  Sayce's  paper  in  the  Expository  Times  for 
December  1881  1  have  already  protested.  The  Tell-el-Amarna 
tablets  introduce  a  fresh  element,  not  of  simplicity,  but  of 
complication  ("development"  is,  alas!  not  such  a  simple 
matter  as  theorists  used  to  suppose).  But  E.  Meyer's  critical 
inference  from  Egyptian  history  in  Stade's  Z/.,  18SS,  pp.  47 — 
49  (cf.  his  Geseh.  des  Alt.,  i.  202),  appears  to  be  worth  a  corner 
even  of  Dr.  Driver's  limited  space. 

2  Few  probably  will  accept  Kohler's  suggestions  on  "the 
Chaldean  names  of  Daniel  and  his  three  friends,"  in  the  Zt. 

fiir  Assyriologie,  1889,  pp.  46 — 51. 


366      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

circumstances  are  not  perhaps  such  as  to  be  absolutely 
inconsistent  with  either  the  existence  or  the  office  of 
1  Darius  the  Mede '  ;  and  a  cautious  criticism  will 
not  build  too  much  on  the  silence  of  the  inscriptions, 
when   many  certainly  remain  yet  to  be  brought  to 

Hght." 

Now  it  is  quite  true  that  in  the  addenda  to  the 
second  edition  it  is  stated,  in  accordance  with  the 
contract-tablets  published  by  Strassmaier,  that 
neither  "  Darius  the  Mede  "  nor  even  Belshazzar  bore 
the  title  of  king  between  Nabuna'id  and  Cyrus.  But 
it  is  not  the  very  venial  error  in  the  original  state- 
ment on  which  I  lay  stress,  but  the  attitude  of  the 
writer.  Out  of  excessive  sympathy  with  old- 
fashioned  readers,  he  seems  to  forget  the  claims  of 
criticism.  The  words  of  Daniel  v.  31  should  be  in 
themselves  sufficient  to  prove  the  narrative  in  which 
they  occur  to  have  been  written  long  after  B.C.  536.1 

Thirdly,  against  the  view  that  chap.  xi.  contains 
true  predictions,  the  author  should,  I  think,  have 
urged  Nestle's  certain  explanation  of  the  so-called 
"  abomination  of  desolation "  in    Stade's  Zeitschrift 

1  That  Mr.  Pinches  should  have  come  forward  on  the  side  of 
conservatism  at  the  Church  Congress  in  1891  is,  I  presume,  of 
no  significance.  He  is  far  too  modest  to  claim  to  have  studied 
the  Book  of  Daniel  critically.  The  same  remark  probably 
applies  to  Mr.  Flinders  Petrie  {szeBampto?i  Lect.,pp.g,  10).  On 
"Darius  the  Mede,"  compare  Meinhold  {Beitrcige,  1888),  and 
Sayce,  Fresh  Light,  &c.  (1884),  p.  181,  who  however  unduly 
blunts  the  edge  of  his  critical  decision.  See  also  my  own 
article  "  Daniel,"  for  an  incidental  evidence  of  the  confusion 
between  Cyrus  and  Darius  Hystaspis  from  1  Kings  x.  18,  Sept. 


DRIVER.  367 

for  1883  l  (sec  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  105).  That  an 
Exilic  prophet  should  have  used  the  phrase  explained 
by  Nestle,  Bishop  Ellicott  himself  will  admit  to  be 
inconceivable.  I  will  not  blame  Dr.  Driver  for  his 
remark  on  p.  477  (line  2S,  &c),  but  I  believe  that  it 
is  not  quite  critical,  and  that  Nestle's  discovery 
supplies  the  last  fact  that  was  wanted  to  prove  to  the 
general  satisfaction  that  Daniel  xi.,  xii.  (and  all  that 
belongs  to  it)  was  written  in  the  reign  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes.  I  say  "  the  last  fact,"  because  a  faithful 
historical  explanation  of  Daniel  xi.,  xii.,  such  as  is 
given  by  the  great  Church-Father  Ilippolytus  in  the 
lately  discovered  fourth  book  of  his  Commentary,- 
forces  on  the  unprejudiced  mind  the  conclusion  that 
this  section  was  written  during  the  Syrian  persecution. 
Hippolytus,  it  is  true,  did  not  draw  this  conclusion, 
but  who  can  wonder  that  the  Neoplatonic  philosopher 
Porphyry  did  ?  And  should  we  not  be  ready  to  learn 
even  from  our  foes  ? 

Fourthly.  (The  reader  will  pardon  this  dry  ar- 
rangement under  heads  with  a  view  to  brevity.)     I 

1  Dr.  Driver  mentions  this  explanation  in  the  addenda  to  ed. 
2.  But,  like  Mr.  Bevan  (Daunt,  p.  193,  who  also  refers  to 
Nestle),  he  thinks  the  "abomination  "was  an  altar.  Surely,  as 
Blcek  saw,  it  was  (primarily  at  least)  a  statue.  The  statue 
of  Olympian  Zeus  bore  the  Divine  name,  and  the  altar  was 
presumably  erected  before  it. 

-  Fragments  of  the  Syriac  version  of  this  fourth  book  were 
given  by  Lagarde,  Analecta  Syriaca  (1S38),  pp.  79  —  91. 
(ieorgiades  discovered,  and  Dr.  E.  Bratke  edited  the  complete 
work  in  Greek  in  1891.  [In  June  1892  Dr.  Salmon  gave  an 
article  on  Hippolytus's  commentary  in  Ilcruuithcna,  No.  18.] 


368      FOUNDERS  OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

notice  on  p.  479  the  same  confusion  which  occurs 
elsewhere  between  "  tradition  "  and  history.  I  do 
not  think  that  any  critic  who  agrees  on  the  main 
point  with  Dr.  Driver  would  maintain  that  "  Daniel, 
it  cannot  be  doubted,  was  a  historical  person  "  except 
the  newly-converted  Delitzsch,  who,  as  his  article  in 
the  second  edition  of  Herzog's  Encyclopedia  shows, 
had  not  worked  his  way  to  perfect  clearness.  Listen 
to  the  late  Prof.  Riehm,  who  is  now  just  obtaining 
recognition  among  us.  "  The  material  of  his  narra- 
tives the  author  may  partly  have  taken  from  folk- 
tales {aus  der  Volkssage),  though  at  any  rate  in  part 
he  invented  it  himself.  .  .  .  And  even  if  there  was 
a  folk-tale  (Volkssage),  according  to  which  Daniel 
was  a  prophet  living  during  the  Exile  and  dis- 
tinguished for  his  piety,  yet  the  historical  existence 
of  an  Exilic  prophet  Daniel  is  more  than  doubtful."  l 

One  must,  I  fear,  add  that  the  two  statements 
mentioned  in  note 2  as  resting  possibly  or  probably 
on  a  basis  of  fact  are,  the  one  very  doubtful,  the 
other  now  admitted  to  be  without  foundation. 

Fifthly,  as  to  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the 
book.  Dr.  Driver  states  this  to  be  at  earliest  about 
B  C.  300,  but  more  probably  B.C.  168  or  167  (p. 
467).  Delitzsch  is  bolder  and  more  critical ;  he  says 
about  B.C.  168.  But  to  be  true  to  all  the  facts,  we 
ought  rather  to  say  that,  while  some  evidence  points 
to  a  date  not  earlier  than  B.C.  300,  other  facts  point 

1  Einleitung  in  das  A.T.,  ii.  329. 


DRIVER.  369 

to  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  perhaps 
more  definitely  still  to  the  period  between  the  end  of 
Dec.  165  (the  dedication  of  the  temple,  which  is 
mentioned  in  Daniel  viii.  14)  and  June  164  (the  end 
of  the  seventieth  year-week,  when  the  writer  of 
Daniel  expected  the  tyrant  Antiochus  to  "  come  to 
his  end  ")} 

It  was  a  pity  that  so  little  could  be  said  on  the 
composition  of  the  book.  Reuss  and  Lagarde  both 
held  that  the  book  was  made  up  of  a  number  of 
separate  "fly-sheets,"  and  Dr.  C.  H.  II.  Wright  main- 
tains that  it  is  but  an  abridgment  of  a  larger  work. 
The  theories  of  Lenormant,  Zockler,  and  Strack  also 
deserved  a  mention.  On  Meinhold's  theory  a  some- 
what too  hesitating  judgment  is  expressed  (p.  483), 
which  should  be  compared  with  Mr.  Bevan's  more 
decided  view  in  his  Daniel.  From  the  form  of  the 
opening  sentence  of  par.  3  on  page  482,  I  conjecture 
that  something  on  this  subject  may  have  been  omitted. 
But  if  by  so  doing  the  author  obtained  more  room  for 
his  linguistic  arguments,  I  can  but  rejoice.  Gladly 
do  I  call  attention  to  the  soundness  of  the  facts  on 
which  these  are  based  and  the  truly  critical  character 
of  his  judgments,  and  more  particularly  to  what  is 
said  on  the  Aramaic  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  and  the 
eminently  fair  references  to  Prof.  Margoliouth.- 

1  The   fullest  justification  of  this   is   given  by  Cornill,  Die 
siebzig  Jakrwochen  Daniels  (Konigsberg,  1889)  ;  cf.  Einleitung, 

p.  258.     This  little  treatise  deserves  a  fuller  criticism  than   it 
has  yet  received. 

-  Mr.  Bevan's  mainly  linguistic  commentary  on   Daniel  and 

1:  1: 


370      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

But  the  treatment  of  the  language  of  Daniel  is  but 
the  climax  of  a  series  of  linguistic  contributions.  To 
any  one  who  has  eyes  to  see,  the  special  value  of  the 
book  consists  in  its  presentation  of  the  linguistic  evi- 
dence of  the  date  of  the  documents  (cf.  p.  106).  I  do 
not  say  that  I  am  not  sometimes  disappointed.  No 
wonder;  did  not  a  good  scholar  like  Budde,  in  1876, 
claim  the  Elihu-speeches  for  the  original  Book  of  Job 
on  grounds  of  language  ?  Often  I  could  have  wished 
both  that  more  evidence  were  given  and  a  more 
definite  conclusion  reached  (e.  g.  on  Joel)  ;  but  I 
recognize  the  difficulties  with  which  Dr.  Driver  had 
to  contend,  arising  partly  from  his  limited  space, 
partly  from  the  un familiarity  of  the  reader  with  this 
style  of  argument.  With  Dr.  Driver's  remark  in  the 
Journal  of  Philosophy ■,  xi.  133  (note1),  I  agree,  and 
when  Dr.  Briggs  suggests  that  in  my  researches  on 
the  Psalms  "  the  argument  from  language  is  not 
employed  with  much  effect,"  *  I  feel  that  if  not  quite 
as  firm  as  I  might  have  been,  I  have  been  at  least  as 
bold  as  Dr.  Driver  would  have  been  ;  indeed,  I  am 
indebted  to  my  colleague  for  criticisms  of  my  "  Lin- 
guistic Affinities  of  the  Psalms,"  which  tended  rather 
to  the  limiting  than  to  the  heightening  of  their 
"effect."     I  think  that  I  should  now  be  able  to  put 

Mr.  Brasted's  study  on  the  order  of  the  sentences  in  the  Hebrew 
portions  of  Daniel  {Hebraica,  July  1891,  p.  244,  &c.)  appeared 
after  the  completion  of  Dr.  Driver's  work. 

1  In   a   very   generous   notice   of  Bampton  Lecture,   North 
American  Review,  Jan.  1892.  p.  106. 


DRIVER.  371 

forward  a  few  somewhat  more  definite  conclusions 
(positive  and  negative),  but  Dr.  Driver's  self-restraint 
on  p.  361  will  perhaps  show  Dr.  Briggs  that  if  I  erred, 
it  was  in  good  company.  Let  me  add  that  the  author 
himself  has  not  lost  the  opportunity  of  giving  some 
sufficiently  definite  conclusions  on  the  development 
of  Hebrew  style.  It  is  on  a  paragraph  which  begins 
by  stating  that  "  the  great  turning-point  in  Hebrew 
style  falls  in  the  age  of  Nehemiah  "  (p.  473).  The 
result  thus  indicated  is  based  upon  much  careful 
observation.  It  agrees  substantially  with  the  view 
of  H.  Ewald  (Lehrbuc/i,  p.  24),  which  is  a  decided 
improvement  upon  Gesenius's  (Gesch.  der  hebr.  Sflr.), 
but  must  however,  as  I  believe,  be  qualified,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  great  variety  of  Hebrew  composition. 

In  bringing  this  review  to  an  end,  let  me  say  once 
more  how  much  more  gladly  I  would  have  echoed 
the  words  of  that  generous-minded  eulogist  of  this 
book — Prof.  Herbert  E.  Ryle.2  I  have  written  because 
of  the  illusions  which  seem  gathering  fresh  strength 
or  assuming  new  forms  among  us,  and  if  I  have  shown 
some  eagerness,  I  trust  that  it  has  been  a  chastened 
eagerness.  The  work  before  us  is  a  contribution  of 
value  to  a  great  subject,  and  if  the  facts  and  theories 
which  it  so  ably  presents  should  influence  the  higher 
religious  teaching,  no    one  would   rejoice  more  than 

1  Cf.  Bampton  Lecture,  pp.  460—463  ;  Geiger,  Urschrift,  pp. 
40,  41.  I  need  not  say  that  I  am  by  no  means  a  disciple  of  this 
brilliant  but  too  hasty  critic. 

-'  See  Critical  Review^  J an.  1892. 


372      FOUNDERS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM. 

myself.  But  solid,  judicious,  and  in  one  place  brilliant 
as  it  is,  it  requires  much  supplementing  as  a  sketch 
of  the  present  state  of  criticism — not  merely  in  the 
sense  in  which  this  must  be  true  of  even  the  best 
handbooks,  but  for  reasons  which  have,  as  I  hope, 
been  courteously  stated.  The  author  appears  to  have 
thought  that  criticism  of  the  Bible  was  one  of  those 
shy  Alpine  plants  of  which  it  has  been  well  said  that 
"  we  can  easily  give  our  plants  the  soil  they  require, 
but  we  cannot  give  them  the  climate  and  atmosphere  ; 
the  climate  and  atmosphere  are  of  as  much  import- 
ance to  their  well-being  as  carefully  selected  soil." 
I  venture,  however,  to  hope  that  he  is  unduly  fearful, 
and  that  the  mental  climate  and  atmosphere  of 
England  is  no  longer  so  adverse  as  formerly  to  a 
free  but  reverent  Biblical  criticism.  Indeed,  one  of 
my  chief  grounds  for  advocating  such  a  criticism  is 
that  it  appears  to  me  to  be  becoming  more  and  more 
necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  true  evangelical 
religion.  It  is,  therefore,  in  the  name  of  the  Apostle 
of  Faith  that  one  of  the  weakest  of  his  followers 
advocates  a  firmer  treatment  of  all  parts  of  the  grave 
historical  problem  of  the  origin  of  our  religion.1 

1  On  the  relation  of  the  criticism  of  the  Gospels  to  faith  see 
some  wise  remarks  of  Herrmann  in  the  Zt.f.  Theol.  u.  Kirche^ 
1892,  p.  258. 


THE    END. 


Date  Due 


C.  I'  "  ■  -~~r 


BS1160.C53 

Founders  of  Old  Testament  criticism: 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00040  7645 


nfflH 

IIIhL , 

'■■■--■■"' 


SStaa 

..:■••;       RH 

EmHT 

■-"■-* 


HP 


fflffffifflgfflffiff 


■■■  ■  >  ..        ni 

^  y.;  ...  Qs.a 

Km 

'•       HI 
-''"Br 

'    Bjti 


srcf2§£3% 


